Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Responsibility to Children

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I begin my remarks by saying that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) regret that long-standing engagements prevent them from making the contribution that they had hoped to make to the debate and we are sorry that they are absent.
"What on Earth Are We Doing to Our Children?" is the title of a pamphlet produced by the Maranatha community that is the inspiration for today's debate. It is not an original work; it is a compendium gleaned from newspaper articles, research reports and similar factual sources about children growing up in the modern world—a world which we in Parliament help daily to shape. The pamphlet tells us that every week 2,900 children are involved in their parents' divorce. By 1996 it is projected that 50 per cent. of children in the United Kingdom will be born to couples who will not be together after the children are 16. About 750,000 British children have no contact with their fathers. Every hon. Member who takes a surgery has seen fathers who are distraught at being cut off from their children altogether. I believe that we must find better ways of remedying that injustice.
I suspect that the debate will concentrate on children in the United Kingdom, but let us not forget that beyond these shores 17 million children die each year from starvation and malnutrition. We in Britain spend more on our household pets than we spend on starving children abroad. Does that matter? If our own children are being brought up successfully and responsibly, why should we care about the rest?
Parliament has a responsibility to do what it can for all of the nation's children. However, economics bolster the moral arguments in this case. For example, it costs the taxpayer £8.5 billion to pay the benefits claimed by 1.3 million lone parents and it has been predicted that that sum will increase to £11.9 billion in five years.
In the 19th century there were two pressures on Parliament to improve the nation's drains. One was the moral outrage expressed by Members of Parliament and many others that fellow humans should live in conditions of such filth and disease. The other pressure arose out of the realisation that cholera did not recognise social class and that, if the new urban populations continued to live in such a state, their diseases would kill the rich as effectively as they killed the poor. The dereliction of our children is today's cholera and we ignore it at our peril, no matter how protected we may feel.
I could continue to draw on information in the pamphlet. I could show how physical injuries inflicted by children upon one another are increasing in volume and intensity as children witness more violence on television and try it out in the playground. I could cite the fact that there are more than 250 million copies of videos which feature child pornography, much of which is filmed live as real children are tortured and raped in order to provide a fat living for the film makers and increase addiction and depravity among those who buy those videos.
Perhaps I should refer to the survey which found that 3 per cent. of 15 to 16-year-olds use heroin. I remind the House that most mainlining adults are not, as we often choose to believe, instantly recognisable zombies shuffling despairingly or menacingly along the streets. They are men and women who go to work in suits and who hold down jobs until their addiction one day gets on top of them entirely. We, their neighbours, are then amazed to discover that such nice, ordinary people are drug abusers on a journey to skid row that may well have started in school.
It is not a crisis out there, or some civil war in a remote country in which we have no influence. It is a crisis here, among us and our children, yet it sometimes seems as if we exert as little influence as if it were happening in a remote country seen for a moment on our television screens.
Others will make their own points in the debate and I hope that they will include drugs, prostitution and abuse. The rest of my speech will be in two parts. First, I shall try to reflect on the reasons for our crisis and then I shall suggest some modest ideas about what might be done as a start to turn the tide.
We have to begin with ourselves. What do we value and what do we want? No previous generation of British people has ever been so rich. In 1971, a single female parent on average earnings with one child under 11 would have to work for 3,258 hours to pay for a Ford Escort. In 1994, it would have taken just over 2,100 hours. To pay for a pound of fish in 1971, she would have had to work for 37 minutes; in 1994 she would have to work for 27 minutes.
We are much richer than we were. Christ once asked the question:
For what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
That is the question that we have to reflect on today.
If the result of prosperity is that a child of eight can have a portable computer in his room which gives him as much access to pornography, violence or explicit sex as the adult world can devise, and if he increasingly seeks refuge in the solitude of that room because his parents are fighting downstairs, why should anyone be surprised if he becomes, at best, introverted and withdrawn and at worst violent and ready to abuse other children or bully old people?
We are caught in a tension that we seem prepared neither to recognise nor to resolve. On one hand, even if the secondary school heads want it abolished, 70 per cent. of the population support daily worship in schools because they want morality taught to their children. On the other hand, we adults behave as if we had no right at all to guide, advise or discipline our children. I can understand that, but it is none the less a mistake. We


should use our experience and our mistakes to help the young and our imagination to respond sympathetically to their need for support.
Most hon. Members who have children accept that they are unlikely to enter the labour market until they are at least 22 years old. When our youngsters approach GCSEs with at least two more years of school ahead, and possibly five or six years of higher education to follow, we regard them still as children. Yet, if a poorly educated youngster leaves her abusive home to set up house with another teenager and has a baby which the boy then abandons because he cannot cope, we react to that single parent as being beyond the pale, an irresponsible burden on the public purse and the source of many of society's ills.
That 16-year-old is only a child—a child who has less support and help available to her than most children. She may be so scarred by what she has already endured that she finds it difficult to accept help, particularly from official sources. We have to change the pattern of her behaviour and our response to it. There has to be a way of using the skills, experience and capacity for love of many of our citizens to help those children and we cannot be complacent when we consider what we have done so far.
It is sometimes argued that we should return to the Victorian era. If that were to mean that Parliament became more effectively concerned with moral issues, I would agree, but other than that such nostalgia is not helpful. The world has changed and even though our values have not, their application must take account of those changes.
Impermanence is now a way of life for many people. If neither marriage nor job nor home is expected to last, if fashions in music, clothes, pets or partners change every few weeks, how can a child hope to find the certainties that it craves? How can parents who receive almost no instruction in how to perform the hardest and most important task they will ever be required to do have the confidence to set standards for their children and to stand by them?
In his Reith lecture, Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks said:
our current lack of norms relating to sexuality and marriage precisely reflects the supreme importance we have given to the abstract individual, without a binding commitment either to the past or to the long-term future; open endedly free to choose or unchoose any style of life.
I do not believe that when two young people get together they want their relationship to end in a year or two in bitterness and expensive anger, but we know how many do. I do not believe that parents want their children to be bullied at school, but it is reckoned that one in four now are. I do not believe that parents want their children to be exposed to endless and ever more distorted pornography, but in a study of 8,500 schools, 50 per cent. said that computer pornography had been available to their pupils, some as young as eight. I do not believe that parents want any of that, but they do not know how to reverse the tide. Neither do I, but I have some ideas of policies which might help, and I shall close my remarks with a few suggestions.
First, in regard to computerised pornography, there are differing views about the effect of pornography on adults who choose consciously to buy it, but there is a great difference between that adult choice and the freely available filth peddled through information technology to anyone of any age who has access to a portable computer.
I hope that the Minister will agree that communication channels which are open to everyone regardless of age or income, without supervision or support, need to be regulated. I cannot believe that parents in any country in the world are happy that child pornography and graphic scenes of sex abuse, or torture for its own sake, are available to their children, no matter how young those children may be. That surely provides a basis for international agreement on regulation and control.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly during such a moving and impressive oration. I endorse everything that he has said about computer pornography and access by children, but does he agree that the matter is not confined to the dramatic dark end of the issue? There is also the problem of children being isolated in their homes, simply sitting in front of the television. The growth in the number of television sets within people's homes means that in some families children have their own television sets and the parents may watch television in a different room. They do not eat together, but they graze. That is also part of the spectrum. My hon. Friend was giving us examples from the darkest end of the spectrum, but the problem begins at the lightest end. Families can help by no longer existing in isolation in separate rooms in front of their own television sets.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is quite right. In my own household, my wife has always insisted that any member of the family under the roof at a meal time has to come to the meal. If they are not there they cannot do so, but if they are in the house they have to attend as meal times provide interaction between parents and children. Those sensible ideas are followed by many families, but there are a whole host of families which may not comprise the parents of the children concerned. One of them may be the mother or the father, but there may be a new partner who is awkward with the child. There may be all sorts of pressures on them not to meet together. Such lack of support is the basis of much of the trouble, and the reason for that lack is the absence of any model of how problems can be overcome.
Many young parents, be they 15 years old or 30 years old, would welcome—if only we could find a sensible way of doing this—an older mentor, lovingly prepared to give of their time and support in a host of informal ways to help a family work out the best ways of interacting. I cannot imagine that any parent would not like to know how to interact positively with his or her children. Many do not know—and we, through the statutory services, cannot teach them. That must be done in an informal, community-based family way.
We should take a more positive stand on that which Parliament has already decreed and insist that an act of worship is central to the school day, with its clear message about the difference between good and evil on which all main religions agree. Most parents from the many minority faiths now found in Britain share the Archbishop of Canterbury's view and would far rather see the Christian Church standing firm for what it believes than Christians who are so keen to accommodate other religions that they put across no message.
The Government should look again at the many voluntary youth organisations that reach out to the young and give them more support. What sense does it make for the Government constantly to cut financial support to the


National Association of Boys Clubs, for example, when the most common complaint of local communities is that their young have nothing worth while to do? It must be a source of hope that the Scout Association has a membership of more than 650,000 and as many as 90,000 voluntary helpers, yet it receives no money from central Government and local authority support is increasingly capricious.

Mr. Hartley Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in his excellent speech. Does he agree that all the tentacles of Parliament and Government should treat children equally? Is not it a blatant anomaly that the children of widowers are treated much harder under our social security system than the children of widows?

Mr. Rowe: I had not understood that previously. If that is the case, it seems nonsense. One strange paradox of a generation that has come increasingly to accept equality between the sexes is that the father who, quite properly, wants to care for his children from a broken family—whether from death or divorce—has an infinitely harder time achieving that objective than does a mother. We ought to consider whether that approach is even-handed.
We should take seriously the exclusion of young people from opportunities to shape society. Each year, we extend the period for which the majority of young people remain in statu pupillari and use that as an excuse to exclude them from taking any serious responsibility. No wonder they play so little a part in politics or anything else. Football, for example, is a young man's game, played by young men, supported overwhelmingly by young people and dependent upon them. Is not it astonishing that the average age of the Football Association council's 89 members is 60, and that it does not include one member aged between 15 and 30? My researcher was told that the FA does not consider it necessary to involve young people in the decision-making process. The Lawn Tennis Association takes the same view. What a scandal. If the generation that runs the dealing floors in the City or commands troops in Bosnia is not deemed fit to play any serious part in activities that overwhelmingly concern that age group, is it surprising that members of the young generation turn to activities outside the establishment for opportunities to express themselves?
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister when I say that another instrument to hand, if only the Government would pick it up, is citizen service—an opportunity for any young person who wishes to offer service to his or her community in a disciplined, supervised, challenging and accredited way. My hon. Friend knows my views too well for me to elaborate on them this morning.
The time has come for the informal links between Government Departments, which proceedings on the Children Bill did much to foster, to be formalised. It is difficult for children's needs to receive the attention that would enable them to compete with adults' concerns if they are split between several Whitehall Departments and local authorities. Every special interest asks for its own Department but the magnitude of the crisis confronting children gives their cause a special claim on Ministers' attention.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again in his excellent speech. At present, 11 Government Departments deal, to a greater or

lesser extent, with young people or children. One effect is that when splendid organisations, many of them small, try to pursue small sums of money, they must process forms through four or five central Government Departments as well as through local authorities. That must be a nonsense.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend supports my point admirably.
This debate is above all about our personal responsibility for our children and for their children after them. If we are to turn the tide of pornography, sex abuse, violence in and out of school, nihilism and despair, we must each accept some personal responsibility. It is not enough to watch silently as the BBC, press and other media relentlessly go further down market. The editor of one magazine said, "The easiest way to sell magazines is to stick in another piece on sex. Sex sells, and that is the bottom line." It is symptomatic of our reluctance to stick responsibility where it belongs that the founder of Maranatha has been unable to get any reply from the chairman of the BBC to a serious complaint.
One of the most destructive sounds in modern Britain is a journalist saying, "I am not concerned with the consequences. I am only after the story." If the editor of the Daily Sport or of any other journal were occasionally to ask if that which he was printing would make the world better or worse for his own children or grandchildren, we might take a major step to accepting our responsibilities to our children.
If we go on as we are—confused but quiescent—it will be our children and grandchildren who will be bullied at school, pressured to try drugs, left alone to cope with the dangers of AIDS and paying the personal cost of broken relationships and damaged children. This debate is an attempt to bring into the cockpit of the nation the sharp realities of that which we are doing to our children day in, day out—here and overseas.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I welcome the opportunity to speak on a subject that is potentially wide-ranging. I will address just a few of the responsibilities that Liberal Democrats and myself believe that the Government have to children. As Parliament and through Government we have a responsibility to act on behalf of all citizens and to spend their money wisely and in the general interest, while paying careful attention to the rights of all, and to lay down and enforce the rule of law equally and without prejudice. But it must be the particular responsibility of any Government to act on behalf of, and to help to protect, those who cannot help themselves. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that our responsibilities to children are so important.
The recognition that children are especially vulnerable is shared by all parties in the House, and some of our laws reflect it. It is why homeless families with children have priority status for housing—as a result of a Bill introduced by a former Member for Isle of Wight. It is why child benefit is paid, why a higher amount of family credit is paid to those with more children, why children are exempt from health charges, and why children's clothes are still exempt from value added tax.
Despite all this, we are still failing to meet our responsibilities to huge numbers of children. According to the Family Welfare Association, 3.9 million children


live in poverty in the United Kingdom—that is to say, their families live on less than half the average wage. That applies to one in three of all our children.
Of particular concern to me is the fact that families with young children suffer disproportionately in the housing market. A huge number of the million households suffering from negative equity are young couples who were first-time buyers in the mid-1980s and who now want to move house to accommodate their young and growing families. They find themselves trapped because their homes are worth less than their mortgages.
How has this happened? I and many others believe that it is a result of the Government's boom-bust economics, which played fast and loose with the housing market and encouraged a growth in home ownership at an unsustainable rate. Mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—artificially pushed up housing prices when it was introduced and is now being cut, despite all the Government's promises to help home owners at the last election. It is being cut even for families who relied on it being there when they took out their mortgages, which they were strongly encouraged by the Government to do.
At the same time, the safety net for home owners is being removed from beneath them. More than half the households officially deemed homeless each year have dependent children. Fortunately many of them are rehoused, because we give them priority, but many children languish in expensive but cramped bed-and-breakfast and other temporary accommodation. The effects on children's health and development of eviction and repossession, and of being shifted around various types of temporary accommodation, can be dreadful. We also know that they are long lasting.
Last year I was privileged to take part in Select Committee hearings taking evidence on the United Nations Year of the Family. Many organisations told us just how detrimental moving from house to house could be for young people. If all I read is true, I fear that there is worse to come—in the shape of the Government's proposals for one-year tenancies for homeless families. It is possible that legislation on that will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament.
The importance of security and stability to a young life is hard to overstate. As we have heard today, the most important ingredient of all is a loving family. But increasingly, families are breaking up. Many years ago my parents split up, when I was 11. Perhaps for that reason I have been very careful to keep my family together for my children because I know how family break-ups can affect children.
We need to take a careful look at school curriculums to see what we can do to provide parenting classes so as to break the cycle and make people realise what it means to bring children into the world and to be a parent. I heartily agree with what the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said about eating together as a family—that activity is probably one reason why my family has kept together so far, although this place is putting a great deal of pressure on it.
Along with a safe and stable home, a high standard of education is crucial both to the quality of life and to the future development of our children. Here, perhaps even more than in the area of housing, the Government's irresponsibility towards children is plain. Compared with

last year, local education authorities across the country face cuts in real terms of more than £700 million in the amount of money that the Government tell them to spend. That amounts to £50 less spent on each primary school pupil and £194 less for each secondary pupil.
It now looks as though as many as 12,000 teaching posts could be axed to allow councils to fund the teachers' pay award without going over their capping limits. It cannot be responsible behaviour when central Government starve education authorities of funds in this way.

Mr. Brandreth: To inject a positive note, it is possible for certain wisely led local authorities to organise their priorities in such a way as to meet the teachers' pay settlement in full without reducing the quality or quantity of education provision. Cheshire is a shining example of that.
Does the hon. Lady agree that, as well as proper funding for resources for schools—for things like school text books and books of fiction, funding for which has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms in the past 15 years—there is also a place for reading in the home? We should encourage families to read together as well as watching television together. Is the hon. Lady encouraged, as I am, by the latest public lending right figures, which show that in the past year the number of children's books borrowed from public libraries has grown? It would appear that, contrary to popular feeling, more young people are reading children's fiction borrowed from public libraries. Is that not good news?

Mrs. Maddock: I am pleased to hear that lending to children is on the increase, but Dorset faces cuts in funding for public libraries—indeed, I am still waiting for an answer from the responsible Minister about that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important to read with children. Many reading schemes in schools now involve parents in children's reading. That is another reason why nursery education is important, too.
This year's settlement for councils has not been easy, and parents, teachers and governors know the truth, whatever the Government may tell us. Local education authorities will be issuing redundancy notices to teachers and to essential support staff, carers, advisers and those employed to help children with learning difficulties. This is happening from Cumbria to Cornwall and from Barnsley to true-blue Buckinghamshire, where I understand that 122 teaching posts are to go.
These job losses will serve only to exacerbate the problems that schools already have with overcrowding. In Dorset, 44 per cent. of primary school pupils are in classes of more than 30—an increase of a quarter on two years ago. The class sizes of no fewer than 96 of the 109 local education authorities have risen since the last election. Yet in 1983, the Government's manifesto proudly boasted:
The average number of children per teacher is the lowest ever.
Responsibility to our children means ensuring that they are properly equipped with a decent education for adult life, and that they get the knowledge and support that they need to realise their potential. It is irresponsible to squander that potential and talent by inflicting cuts on schools, the effects of which can never be reversed. We believe that that is being done because the Government want to scrabble together enough money to cut income tax in time for the next election. That is irresponsibility personified.
There is not enough time to talk about other policy areas such as health care, crime, the Child Support Agency and the environment. The responsibilities that we owe run wide—but this is a short debate and others are waiting to speak.
Before I finish I would just add that I believe that Government responsibility to our children entails three things: taking all reasonable measures to protect them from harm—

Mr. Oliver Heald: Do not other political parties also share in this responsibility? Does the hon. Lady agree that suggesting that contraceptives be given out to young girls and that cannabis be legalised—as her party does—is the height of irresponsibility and is bound to damage children?

Mrs. Maddock: One should not always take what one reads in the press at face value. If the hon. Gentleman were to read our documents, he would understand that they do not say that we favour giving contraceptives to 11-year-old children. Our conference also wanted a royal commission to consider the serious problem of drugs. If the hon. Gentleman talked to the police, they would tell him how much crime is tied up with drugs. It is responsible to set up a royal commission to consider that.
In respect of protecting children from harm, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent about computer pornography and about what happens to children when they go home from school. Today I shall be hosting an event in the House on behalf of kids' clubs and I hope that many hon. Members will come to hear how they propose to move forward.
Secondly, in making decisions, we must wherever possible consider how those decisions will affect children. We have heard today of issues affecting several different Government Departments. We have asked for a debate in Parliament about those issues and I regret that time was not made available to debate them together, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent for this opportunity.
Thirdly, we must always keep the long-term view at the centre of our thinking. Most fundamentally of all, that means investing in the future rather than being tempted by the quick fix or temporary tax cut to win an election. That is the sort of responsibility that the Government should show for our children, who are, after all, our future.

Mr. Michael Alison: I should like to contribute briefly to the debate by drawing attention to a responsibility to children about which I believe that the House and the Government have a significant opportunity to do something immediate, practical and worth while.
I refer to the terrible tragedy and scandal of child prostitution, which is prolific and, sadly, growing rapidly in parts of Africa and Asia but which has been powerfully nurtured and fertilised by western, and particularly British, tourist-based paedophile patronage and procurement.
The key contribution that the House and the Government can make in this realm by way of remedy or prevention is to amend our criminal law so that a sexual offence against a child under the age of 18, though committed in a jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom, could be triable

and punishable in the United Kingdom. The offence would, of course, have to be an offence under the law of the country in which it was committed as well as under the comparable United Kingdom criminal statutes.
The idea of prosecuting a British subject at home for an offence committed overseas might, at first sight, seem bizarre and impracticable, if not slightly sinister in its far-reaching implications. However, I am told that the principle of extra-territorial or extra-jurisdictional prosecution is not legally unprecedented or unrecognised. The war crimes trials are an obvious case in point and I believe that certain cases to do with overseas contracts and commercial activities also fall into that category.
The real problem is that of ensuring proper and sustainable evidence for a prosecution. Certainly, that aspect clearly worried my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was recently kind enough to meet me and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to discuss the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend was adamant that declaratory legislation—legislation which postulated prohibitions and penalties in some area of human conduct without a realistic prospect of ever being effectively applied or operated in the courts—simply brought the law into disrepute and was counterproductive.
I understand the uselessness of merely declaratory laws, but I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of the fact that Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden have all passed legislation to prosecute their nationals who commit sexual offences against children overseas and that Japan and New Zealand are following suit. In Norway, there have been three prosecutions under this novel form of legislation and, in each case, the prosecution led to a conviction. Evidence does not necessarily present insoluble problems.
I recognise the hesitation which must almost instinctively invade the minds of Home Office Ministers and officials in considering an outside initiative to extend our statute law in an uncharted, untried and, effectively, unprecedented manner, but new days call for new ways.
Genuine, bona fide tourism is one of the giant revolutionary changes in our age and our environment and constitutes a massive, worldwide form of economic activity and output. If Britain welcomes tourism so gladly and assiduously—I believe that we are the world's sixth largest tourist host country—how much more must the less developed countries of Africa and Asia welcome western tourists for their spending power and hard currency. However, a ghastly appendage and by-product—child prostitution—overwhelmingly demanded by and provided for western tourists, is appearing and increasing in the fast-growing, uniquely 20th century industry of tourism.
Lord Hylton has introduced and piloted through another place his all-party Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. To his immense credit, he has devised a model legislative instrument, though it is probably not foolproof or flawless, to emulate the examples of our western neighbours in changing our law. He has also given us some horrifying facts and figures about the incidence and growth of child prostitution. There are estimated to be between 60,000 and 100,000 child prostitutes in the Philippines, between 15,000 and 30,000 in Sri Lanka, between 40,000 and 200,000 in Thailand and up to 100,000 in Taiwan, not to mention tens of thousands in Kenya and India.
There is substantial evidence that United Kingdom nationals are in the forefront of patronage of those overseas child prostitutes. In simple tourist terms, for example, the United Kingdom is the third largest source of European visitors to Thailand, where child prostitution is most rife. It is a shameful fact that the United Kingdom ranks fourth in the table of foreign nationals arrested in Asia for offences against children.
Nothing horrified me more in learning about this fearful and inhuman abuse of children than the report by Father Shay Cullen, a leading campaigner against child prostitution, of a recent incident in a city in the Philippines where a fire broke out and burned down a massage parlour that was used for child prostitution. When it was cool enough for the firefighters to search the premises, they found the body of a dead child chained to a bed.
Nothing that our Victorian forebears did to children in forcing them up chimneys as sweeps can compare with the abuse that I have described. We legislated against such Victorian malpractices; we should legislate against this uniquely contemporary abuse of children. I believe that Lord Hylton's Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is an immediate instrument to hand and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give very sympathetic consideration to giving it a fair wind or perhaps introducing, in due course, Government legislation to tackle this appalling and unacceptable feature of the world scene.

Sir Michael Neubert: On 25 April last year, almost a year ago to the day, I initiated a private Member's motion the theme of which was the safeguarding of the younger generation. I am therefore glad to have caught your eye, Madam Speaker, and be able to contribute to today's debate.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on securing the opportunity for us to debate this important issue and on the very impressive speech with which he opened the debate. His broad message to the House articulated the appeal to the nation's conscience, which is the subject of the Maranatha community's pamphlet. I, too, drew on the community's information last year and was able to relate a litany of abuse as proof of the breakdown of society in this country. Today's debate takes that much further, and the very sombre speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) revealed that children are in peril and at risk everywhere in the world, not only in the United Kingdom. In the short time available to me, I can but add a few embellishments and the latest illustrations of the forces at work which are threatening children.
Children are our country's most precious asset, yet they are vulnerable to assaults from all quarters, some unexpected. They are shamelessly exploited for their growing spending power and influence on family purchasing. Their sensibilities are brutalised by the adult world into which we bring them. These forces are at work in various spheres of activity.
I mention in passing academia. In this context, I read with astonishment that the university of Dundee is to establish a chair in gender relations in education and employment. That in itself might seem mere political

correctness, but, by challenging the traditional role of women, and especially their role as mothers, the growing number of courses in so-called gender studies—the gender agenda—threatens the welfare of children and that threat, wherever possible, should be resisted.
It is a short step from academia to the media where opinions that threaten the welfare of children are constantly voiced. I was surprised at the weekend when I read the views of the highly acclaimed comedy actress, Miriam Margolyes. She has appeared in an outstanding television production of "Little Dorrit" and has a one-woman show on Charles Dickens. She appears in the type of production that might well be the subject of children's studies in the English classics yet speaking about the family she said:
I think families are killers actually, particularly the nuclear family. There is something very off-putting to me about the state of marriage … I don't like children".
Those views are extraordinary and out of place, but she is entitled to them. What concerns me is that the person holding them was the subject of a half-page profile in a major Sunday national newspaper. If such views are prevalent in our society, it is little wonder that the institution of the family, which is the greatest protection for our children, is under threat.
Channel 4 is another cause for concern. I have a love-hate relationship with it. I admire its imaginative programming, and it has a remit to offer programmes not offered by the other three terrestrial channels, but there is a constant battle to ensure that it remains within reasonable limits. Although the Independent Television Commission does its best to keep it in check, the system that it has to administer is one of complaining about programmes after they have been shown. The drawbacks of such a system are self-evident because Channel 4's programmers are determined to push back the barriers of "good taste and decency", to cite the Broadcasting Act 1990.
I give one of many examples. It was reported that Channel 4's late-night programme "Eurotrash" would show viewers how to make their own porn movies, so I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent that the problem is not only that children have access to pornography but that they are now being shown how to make their own pornographic film if they choose to watch late-night television. As we have heard, if they have a television set in their own room and are isolated, they will watch such programmes.
A senior Channel 4 source admitted:
We are certainly pushing at the boundaries of decency. The documentary is the most outrageous piece of TV viewers will see for a long time.
The blatancy of such programmes increases daily and we have little power to resist, but I call on the Government to review once again the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and see whether they can be strengthened or enforced more effectively so that pernicious influences do not corrupt our children.
I am sorry to say that children are often at risk from the Government, not by design but by chance. This week provided a pertinent illustration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was under pressure to allow the division of a couple's assets on divorce. Taken at face value, that might seem equitable but it is in fact a disincentive for a couple to remain together. If, as a result of family breakdown, people lose nothing, what incentive is there for them to keep the family together?
The Secretary of State pointed out that, even worse, such a policy would cost £300 million because of the extra tax breaks that would be available to a divorced couple over and above what would be available to a married couple. Fortunately, to his credit, my right hon. Friend resisted, and I pay tribute to him for his stalwart defence of the Child Support Agency legislation which was one of the major advances in ensuring responsibility in parenthood.
There are, however, other hazards. In a publication from the Institute of Economic Affairs, Patricia Morgan points out the consequences of the new child care allowance. She states that
a single mother with two small children can work for 20 hours a week for £4 an hour and, including all state benefits to which she is entitled, will receive a net income of £163.99.
A married father of two small children working for 40 hours at the same rate—and receiving all appropriate benefits—would get only £130.95 net.
That is clearly a disincentive of the worst kind. If society is based on the family, we cannot allow such an anomaly to continue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said, there are 1.3 million lone parents bringing up children in Britain. That is a social catastrophe, not because the vast majority of those children and parents do not live happy, productive and fruitful lives, but because every child is entitled, wherever possible, to the love and attention of two parents.
We are sowing dragon's teeth—unless we support the family and give children their entitlement to a stable home background and, wherever possible, the love and attention of two parents, these injured offspring will continue to rise up and strike us down.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on securing this brief debate. Perhaps this is the time to ask for a longer debate in the future because it is clear that there are many issues to discuss.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is to reply. I was not sure whether a Home Office Minister would attend. His presence reminds me that, in 1971, the children's unit was transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health. One might wonder whether that move was carried out as wisely as it should have been. In that context, I refer my hon. Friend to Dick Crossman's diaries, which describe some of the scraps that took place, give a blow-by-blow account of how the unit was moved and tell of the battle with the then Home Secretary, Jim Callaghan, as he was. The diaries state that Jim Callaghan said:
You're going to win anyway, Dick. You'll get the Children's Department out of me. Why not be generous in this small thing and make a few friends.
He went on to suggest how a deal could be done.
We should pay more attention to the need for more central and local co-ordination. I know that a number of Government Departments are involved. Indeed, in an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said that he thought that 11 Government Departments were involved. Obviously, one is aware of the involvement of not only the Department of Health and the Home Office but the Department for Education and

the Lord Chancellor's Department, with the family law review that is under way. I understand that three Cabinet Committees are involved in children's issues: the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs, the EDH Committee; the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues, the EDH(W) Committee; and the Lord Chancellor's Family Law Review Committee. Perhaps we should have a Children's Committee. If we look to the future of this country, nothing is more important than how we bring up our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said that children are our most precious asset. I would call for much stronger measures to co-ordinate children's issues, both centrally and locally.
In my constituency, Bolton council recently set up a children and young people joint working party, in December 1994—tragically, only a fortnight before young 12-year-old Thomas Oakes was found dying from mutilation in his home. His plight was not known to anybody. He was not on any "at-risk" register. Although we still do not know what the inquiry will come up with, clearly, lack of co-ordination between all the agencies, both formal and informal, will be part of it.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister from the Home Office in his place, as I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their work in Bolton. Crime has been reduced for the fourth year running. Nationally, we have seen the biggest drop in crime in 40 years. I was shocked recently when Chief Superintendent Bartlett told me that he thought that one of the areas of greatest concern in Bolton was heroin addiction among youngsters. My hon. Friend the Minister for Mid-Kent mentioned that 3 per cent. of 15-year-olds were heroin addicts. I had no idea that the figure was as high as that nationally, and am extremely concerned that heroin addiction should be growing among youngsters in Bolton. Clearly, that is an area to which we need to pay enormous attention.
I believe that local authorities must do much more. The Government have devolved responsibility for children's issues, through the Children Act, to local authorities. Setting up a committee does not seem to me to resolve issues. Just this week, I received a letter from Mrs. Rita Lilley, the chair of Hallith Wood residents association in my constituency. If I may, I shall refer briefly to it. She says:
I feel I have to write because for the past two years things are not getting any better. I have made numerous phone calls to schools, Education, Social Services, Criminal Justice and the Police.
The problem is persistent young offenders of which there are three on our estate at present. I am told that two of the youths' parents have washed their hands of them and I believe they are all in the care of social services … What the residents and I would like to know is who is responsible for these youths and what if anything is being done to try and get them back on the straight and narrow, because all I see is them roaming the streets day in and day out and frankly I am sick and tired of wasting my time and money contacting departments who don't seem to be bothered.
It is atrocious that the chair of a residents association should be so despairing of being able to get a response from a council that has the devolved responsibility to deal with these issues. I would call on the council to decentralise its services as far as possible and to set up more neighbourhood units. Neighbourhood watch schemes are an excellent example of neighbourhood action and initiative from the Home Office. I think that we could have many more neighbourhood schemes, centred perhaps on schools.
I have just been on a visit to Switzerland, where a lot of voluntary work is done in schools on a local scale. Town halls are too large and too remote from the issues that they have to deal with. I call for much more devolution by local authorities into neighbourhoods, so that real action can take place. Indeed, we should look at the way in which central Government and local government could work more closely together.
In France, child benefit is not paid if children are truant. I have raised that question with the Prime Minister and have been told that it would be difficult to implement, but I think that it would be a very good way to draw attention to the children who are truant, and to inquire why each child is not at school, and what should be done about that. I hope that only in a few cases would the benefit be withdrawn. Perhaps if the child benefit was paid by the schools themselves it would be another source of funding for them if some parents felt that they could leave the benefit with the school in the first place.
If children are truant, it is a serious matter. I would like to see more conditionality of benefits. That occurred in the old days, before we centralised everything. We now have the most centralised system of local and central Government that we have ever had. We are losing touch with issues on a truly local scale. I commend two of the Government's initiatives—the local management of schools and, as I have mentioned, neighbourhood watch schemes—as examples of what can be done through working in a neighbourhood way. That is the way to give proper attention to children's matters.
I commend my hon. Friend on having secured the debate today and hope that we shall have many more opportunities to speak on one of the most important issues for the future of this country.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on raising this short but very important debate on the subject of responsibility to children, and also on his strong and compassionate speech. I was very impressed with what he had to say and the trouble to which he has gone to find the facts and figures concerning children in this country.
Internationally, the most significant move for children must have been the drawing up of the declaration of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which, for the first time, established a universally agreed set of rights for children and, even more significantly, caused Governments to examine their legislation and priorities—or lack of them—with regard to children. It turned the spotlight on to children, and I hope that it will never again be turned off. It certainly influenced our Government to legislate to draw together our laws in support of children and led to the passing of the Children Act—a landmark in our Government's attitude towards children's rights. But it does need more than an Act to solve the problems of children. Almost 3 million children—nearly a quarter of all children in this country—live in families who are on income support. More than 4 million children in Britain live in families whose incomes are less than half the average.
It is indeed time for further action. The Government should listen and respond to the criticism of the United Nations convention report, which, earlier this year, made

a devastating indictment of Ministers' failures to meet the rights of Britain's children on a host of fronts, such as poverty, inequality, homelessness, health, sex education, immigration and criminal justice. The answer to that criticism by Ministers, both in this House and the other place, was to deny the need for the House to give time to debate that report. Their silence speaks volumes about their compassion.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have taken the opportunity to speak up for children. I must especially congratulate the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), whose knowledgeable and thoughtful contribution to the debate on child tourist prostitution is one that I strongly support. He will be pleased to know that, when I went to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Madrid a few weeks ago, I devoted my entire speech to that disgusting practice and the need for something to be done. He will also be pleased to know that I was approached by delegates from a number of western countries, who asked what they could do, for a copy of my speech and the Bill that is currently going through the House. Delegates from countries which are doing something, such as Australia, told me that they would send me a copy of their Bill and that they would keep in touch with whatever action is taken.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that it is wrong that people from this country can travel abroad and behave in a disgusting manner and then come back and feel quite comfortable that nobody here has seen what they have been doing.
I must also congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), who made a telling contribution about the late programmes on Channel 4. Last night in Committee we debated solvent abuse and the late programmes on Channel 4. There was a strong feeling that the Minister should consider the contributions to those late-night programmes. A recent programme seemed to support even drugs for children, which is very wrong. I call on the Minister to consider whether Channel 4 is operating within the terms of the legislation.
Illegal drugs have been mentioned, but solvent abuse kills more children than illegal drugs. At the last count in 1991, 122 children died of solvent abuse—two children a week. Something can be done about that. Solvents could be labelled much more clearly. The Home Office should consider the conditions of sale of such products and the clearer labelling of products that can be bought over the counter and abused by young children.
Libraries have also been mentioned. At a school in my constituency which I visited, the children are crying out for books. When teachers came here to see me about their disputes, they told me that the children had asked them to ask me for more books. It is not that children do not want to read—they do—but the supply and quality of books in our schools is so poor that something must be done.
I have written to members of my local Labour party asking them to look for books in jumble sales that would be suitable for use in schools. Books in form libraries have been so well read and thumbed that they are worn out. That is one way in which we could get books back into schools for children to borrow and read in their spare time in schools.
Those are just a few of the issues that have been raised to which I wish to refer, but the most important of all is the support from Conservative Members for the Government to follow the lead of the Labour party and to


commit themselves to an independent Minister for children, not to an afterthought Minister with that responsibility in the Department of Health.
The Minister should not persist in spending time defending the Government's record having enacted the Children Act. He should look forward, listen to children and be their voice. We must all listen, but the Minister, more than most, has the power to change things.

Mr. Brandreth: I am slightly concerned to hear the hon. Lady moving on to what I would call a top-down approach as though that was the total answer. My experience is that the good news when it comes is from a bottom-up approach. I do not wish to anticipate the next debate, but, for example, last weekend in my constituency I met parents who were organising a rugby tour involving 120 boys and girls aged between seven and 11. They were to set out from the rugby club in Hare lane to visit Preston and Fleetwood to play rugby. That was not a Government initiative from some Minister in Whitehall; it was the result of parents in the community deciding what was needed. It was much more along the lines of the community watch approach. That may deliver something rather more effective than the top-down approach that the hon. Lady seems to be advocating.

Mrs. Golding: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but Governments have to show a lead. Without legislation, support and the money that has been mentioned, all the good will in the world cannot achieve what we need to achieve in order to make things right for our children.
The debate has shown the enormous concern across a wide range of issues. The Government should take the lead and administer for children. The Minister has the support of the House for much stronger action than the Government have so far taken. For the sake of our children, the Minister should use that support.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on obtaining the debate and on an excellent speech. It was moving, well constructed and full of valid information. It was probably one of the most telling speeches that I have heard in the House for a long time. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on his high-minded and moving speech and my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on their contributions.
My hon. Friends got to the core of the debate which, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) has just pointed out, is the need for a bottom-up approach. Ministers sometimes kid themselves that we need only legislate, pass some great new initiative, make a speech and things will change. So much of what my hon. Friend said in his intervention is right. In many areas, what will make a difference is not great speeches by Ministers or new legislation, but a change in people's attitudes to their children.
I am also grateful to the Maranatha community for producing the booklet "What on Earth Are We Doing to OUr Children?", which addresses issues of deep concern to us all, particularly those hon. Members who have spoken this morning.
Children are among the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. We have a moral duty to protect them from all forms of abuse and neglect and to nurture and nourish them physically and spiritually. Nor should we forget that our children represent the future. It is the responsibility of the older generation to ensure that the next has all possible benefits of health, education, physical security and moral well-being. Those are the points made in the conclusions of the Maranatha community's booklet.
First, I stress the Government's commitment to improving and protecting the rights and welfare of children both here and abroad. We are party to the convention on the rights of the child and support the work of the committee on the rights of the child in monitoring states' compliance with the provisions of the convention.
I had not intended to mention it, but since the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) did so, I shall refer to the review in Geneva in January. I have no comment to make on other Departments, but I have not been silent on the comments made by the United Nations on my responsibilities. I have said that the committee which carried out that investigation behaved like a kangaroo court, and treated British Government officials disgracefully. Its members asked us 48 questions in advance but did not have the decency to give our people the chance to reply to them. They then suddenly produced their conclusions without even listening to the evidence. That does not do the United Nations much of a service.
The Government also work hard in international bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. We supported the adoption by the commission in 1992 of a programme of action for the prevention of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and we have urged all countries to implement the measures that it contains.
On the domestic front, we have taken action across a wide range of areas to improve the standards of health and education of our children and to safeguard their moral and physical welfare. I am confident that our commitment will be borne out by what I have to say.
I come first to the distasteful subject of pornography. Concern has been expressed that children are being exposed more and more to obscene and pornographic material and, most disturbingly, that the trade in child pornography, which by its very nature involves the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, is expanding. The Government share those concerns and took action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to strengthen our existing controls over pornography, already regarded as among the most stringent in the world.
Britain has tough controls over child pornography, with its simple possession now attracting a possible sentence of imprisonment and the more serious offences that might be committed during the making of a film—actual sexual intercourse with a child—carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and quite right too. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act fills a gap in the law by ensuring that computer-generated pseudo-photographs of children are also caught by the relevant legislation, and it makes it clear that other indecent photographs of children stored on computer are caught by the law.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that concern exists in Bolton—I have just written a letter on this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—about


the possible need for further controls on audio tapes, cassettes and compact discs? Apparently, explicit and pornographic audio material, tapes and CDs are around, and there are no controls on their sale to children.

Mr. Maclean: I have not seen my hon. Friend's letter, but I would be surprised if what he said is correct. We do not have to describe pornography in the law as being a tape, a CD or a microchip. The law controlling pornography is so wide that any material, irrespective of how it is stored or produced, or through what electronic medium it is covered or generated, should be caught by it. I shall happily look into my hon. Friend's point, but, as I said, I would be surprised if there is any gap in existing controls.
A new prison sentence exists for the mere possession of child pornography. That is a pretty draconian measure to have, but it marks our abhorrence of the activities of people involved in the evil trade in child pornography—including consumers who provide the market for that sort of filth.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act extended powers to search for and seize child pornography and obscenity offences available to the police. Child pornography and the obscenity offences have been made serious arrestable offences. That will ensure that, if the police raid the premises of a child pornographer, he will be unable to telephone his clients or other members of a paedophile ring, after the police have gone, to warn them to destroy any pictures or evidence that they have. The investigation and control of child pornography and related paedophile activity are accorded a high priority by the enforcement authorities in the UK, and the Government whole-heartedly support that policy. We believe that the steps that we have taken in the most recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act are sensible, practical measures that, taken together, will provide the police with significant additional weapons in the fight against child pornography.
In addition to the increased powers of search, seizure and of arrest which have been provided for obscenity offences, the Government have taken steps to ensure that our legislative controls keep pace with advances in technology. We have ensured that computer transmissions are covered by the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I mentioned earlier that indecent photographs and pseudo-photographs of children stored on computer are also caught by the law.
The Government, the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, however, are aware of the risks posed by the growing ease of access to information super-highways. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to that and to the possibility of linking into pornography on a personal computer through the worldwide Internet system. The law is adequate to deal with child pornography and obscene material generated and transmitted on computer in this country, but I accept that the global nature of such networks and their lack of regulation present particular difficulties. The Government and enforcement authorities are alert to those concerns and are working to ensure that they are as adequately and as effectively dealt with as possible, but I do not want to pretend to my hon. Friends that an easy answer exists and that we can easily plug some little loophole in the law. The problem is difficult.
One forum through which the development of computer pornography is being examined is the recently established inter-departmental working group on obscenity. The formation of that group reflects the Government's continuing commitment to the control of obscenity and pornography, and their determination not to become complacent in the wake of the measures already introduced.
The group will monitor developments in obscenity, with particular reference to emerging trends in computer and child pornography, and will identify any actual or potential difficulties in enforcement, or weaknesses in the relevant law, considering possible ways of overcoming them.
We must not be embarrassed or ashamed if, every year, or every other year, we must plug some gap in pornography controls. Some of our constituents may think that we pass one law and that is it. They say, "Why isn't it working? Surely, it should last for many years." We are aware that, with modern technology and worldwide telecommunications, we may have to make some changes to the law, every other year, to clamp down on such activity.
I want to deal with child prostitution and respond to the moving speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. No one in the Chamber would dispute that child prostitution and the sexual exploitation and abuse of children is a loathsome and abhorrent activity that should be vigorously opposed. A wide range of criminal sanctions are available to deter and to punish people who use and exploit child prostitutes, and, rightly, the penalties imposed are severe.
The police accord a high priority to the enforcement of laws protecting children, and all police officers receive training on how to deal with child abuse and other sexual offences. The Government are committed to doing what they can to prevent children becoming involved in the first place in harmful activities such as prostitution. The Children Act 1989 provides a framework of powers and responsibilities designed to ensure that children receive the care and protection that they deserve. Local authority social services have a duty to investigate where they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their region is suffering from, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. That would include information received suggesting a child may need protection against being drawn into prostitution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby was especially concerned about sex tourism. Concern has been expressed in this country about British citizens who travel abroad, to countries where child prostitution is linked to the organised tourist industry, for the purposes of sexually abusing children. It is a disgusting traffic and my right hon. Friend is right to call for the strongest possible action against those perverts. An understandable desire exists to combat that evil trade through the extension of our courts' jurisdiction over such offences committed abroad.
As my right hon. Friend said, that is the aim of Lord Hylton's Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place this week. The Government have considerable sympathy with the intention behind Lord Hylton's proposal, although we have grave, practical doubts about whether the measures that it proposes would be effective in practice. My right hon. Friend knows that, and he has talked about the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
It would be difficult to bring prosecutions in this country against British tourists who have committed sexual offences abroad, and the measures would cease to be a deterrent once their ineffectiveness had been


demonstrated. The Bill would also fail to tackle the real problem: the tens of thousands of child prostitutes in the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
The police tell us that paedophiles are among the most devious and clever of the people with whom they must deal. If such people are travelling 12,000 miles to participate in that disgusting trade, they are clever enough to spot when we have passed a totally ineffective law, especially if we brought a prosecution that failed abysmally.

Mr. Rowe: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and, of course, none of us wants to be party to passing a totally ineffective Act, but he said earlier that he felt that it was proper to keep returning to the House with measures to block various ways of eluding pornography legislation. It might be worth a crack at passing a law and, if it does not work, coming back to the House to strengthen it rather than doing nothing.

Mr. Maclean: One would want a law that was as strong as possible, but I want to mention the practical difficulties that the House must consider in taking power to try British citizens for crimes that they have committed overseas, particularly in relation to sex tourism.
If I may put the matter on a practical basis, we are all aware of cases where the police or serious crimes squad, in busting a ring of drug dealers, legitimately wire up a policeman with equipment. They may film him on the street participating in that drugs raid, and he may go into court and give evidence, yet defence lawyers are able, in some cases, to have that evidence excluded. We have grave difficulty in securing convictions in those circumstances. Even with the poorest defence lawyer, it is difficult to get any British court to convict someone when the victim does not give evidence in court, when British police officers are not witnesses, and when we do not have someone in court who has been at the scene. The best that we might be able to offer would be a video tape of someone going into a child brothel in one of those countries. I tell my hon. Friends that, much as I would love to get convictions for people who do such things, we would not have a hope of getting a conviction in a British court.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby mentioned countries that have taken extra-territorial jurisdiction; some have passed declaratory laws. Only Norway, we understand, has managed to bring one prosecution against three people. There was a conviction, although no oral evidence was given in court and no witnesses were called. How the Norwegian legal system could manage that I do not know; it could not happen in Britain.
I am not, of course, closing the door to the possibility of such legislation. We want to take some action to try to deal with the trade either at an international level or through other means. I merely wish to point out to the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Rugby League

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The next debate is on the future of rugby league. Before I call the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I remind hon. Members that court proceedings are to take place on Friday which concern the subject matter of the debate to some extent. I trust that hon. Members who wish to speak will be careful not to trespass on the specific matters of the court hearing and, in particular, on whether Keighley should or should not be a member of any proposed super league, but will concentrate on the general issues. This is a short debate and I hope that I shall not have to remind hon. Members of the sub judice rule. At present, nine hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak in this hour and a half debate. The Chair will be more than pleased if they are all successful.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I express my appreciation for the fact that this morning we have the opportunity for a brief debate on some serious developments in the game of rugby league football, specifically professional rugby league football. There are two separate organisations; the amateur game, run by the British Amateur Rugby League Association—BARLA—is largely unaffected by the issues that we are talking about this morning.
I declare at the outset an interest in this debate. As is declared in the Register of Members' Interests, I have 500 shares in Wakefield Trinity rugby league football club. I am not sure what they are worth at present.
The issues are simple and straightforward. Why should a battle between two Australian media magnates result in my constituents losing something very important which we have had for 122 years—Wakefield Trinity rugby league football club? Why should a power struggle on the other side of the world mean that I should lose the team that I have supported through thick and thin since I was a small child?
It is very appropriate that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair this morning. You have risen from humble origins in my part of the world to be a highly respected Member of the House. You have achieved a great deal politically but, most importantly to the people who matter, you once played for Featherstone Rovers. I have here your autobiography, "A Very Miner MP". The front shows a Castleford miner and a Featherstone miner together. There is a gap; perhaps a Wakefield Trinity miner should be included.
I refer to the book because it is clear from it that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, more than anyone understand the community in which rugby league is played. You more than anyone understand how the events of the past two and a half weeks have shaken some of us to our roots because your roots, like mine, have been intertwined with rugby league football from the word go.
On Sunday, I attended what may well be the last match that my team, Wakefield Trinity, will ever play. Grown men wept. That grief has turned to anger at the way in which those ruling the game of rugby league in this country—Mr. Lindsay, the chief executive, Mr. Walker, the chairman, the club chairmen and others—seem to have allowed us to be used.
As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the root of the problem is that rugby league has become a pawn in a power struggle between Kerry Packer and Rupert


Murdoch over first, television coverage of rugby league in Australia and secondly, the expansion of satellite television. When Packer won the right to show Australian rugby league on his Channel 9 station, Murdoch's News Corporation retaliated by planning a super league in direct opposition. Murdoch bought up many of Australia's and New Zealand's top rugby league players. When that strategy failed, he turned to Europe and to rugby league in this country.
After the £77 million deal between the rugby football league in Britain and Murdoch a couple of weeks ago, Packer's representatives came to Britain trying to lure our best players away. The prospect of Murdoch's money being stuffed into players' pockets to outbid Packer is clear; that is the reality of rugby league's present situation. Martin Offiah may become much richer than he is already, but the game of rugby league will be poorer as a direct result.
What could be achieved if the money being offered to some of the players was used instead to develop the game? As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said to me this morning, it could be used for balls, shirts, boots and the other equipment that the kids in the community who want to play the game need. I hope that the likes of Ellery Hanley, who come from a social background that is pretty deprived, do not forget where they come from and what the money that they may receive could do for kids who have origins like theirs.
The implications are clear for many of us who are deeply concerned with the game of rugby league. Mergers have been agreed by club chairs of certain teams which will combine to enter, supposedly, the super league. I am aware that we cannot refer to certain issues on this point, but I shall refer to one or two matters that are especially relevant to the Wakefield area. There have been proposals for the destruction of long-established teams. There are practical questions of particular concern, such as the implication for jobs in an area that does not have many jobs.
There are more than 2,000 professional rugby league players in this country whose family incomes are substantially dependent on what they can earn in the game of rugby league. Many of them will no longer have a job as a direct result of the changes. People such as the coaching staff, the groundsmen and the people who, at my local club of Wakefield Trinity, work behind the bar have asked me what will happen to them if the club folds.
It is proposed that Wakefield Trinity, Featherstone Rovers and Castleford should merge and be called Calder. I am ashamed to say that Trinity's shareholders voted 2:1 in favour of a merger; I argued against the proposal. Perhaps the fact that the club had lost 86–0 to Castleford two days before had an impact on their judgment that day. It is interesting to note that when the local paper, the Wakefield Express, conducted a telephone poll, the result was 9:1 against any merger and to keep Wakefield Trinity as a separate entity.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I come from origins as humble as yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I have only two £1 shares in Hull Kingston Rovers compared with the 500 shares that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has in Wakefield Trinity.
When the question of the merger of the three clubs arose, was there any suggestion of a pecking order—of one club being more dominant than the others—or did the rugby league urge the clubs to go in with equal status and to merge their interests equally?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I cannot answer that question in detail. I have no information that any pecking order was ever suggested. My hon. Friend understands the passions in Hull which has a great history of rugby league, with Hull Kingston Rovers and the Boulevard. I suspect that he has shared in the debates, the arguments and the anger, as we have in Wakefield.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a book has already been published, emerging from Wakefield, about the anger and the grief of people who are affected by the proposed mergers. The book talks of "the merger from hell" because that is the view of people in my area about the proposals. I congratulate the Yorkshire Arts Circus on its book, "Merging on the Ridiculous" and on its work to get across to people outside our area and in the game at high level just how passionately local people feel about what is going on and about the way in which they have been treated.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, the whole problem has arisen because of the battle between two Australian media magnates, Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, over their interests in Australia. Does he agree that the right way to deal with the problem here is by a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has already written to the Office of Fair Trading about the matter. Perhaps the Minister may reflect on that when he responds to the debate.
May I for a moment crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and quote from the book that I mentioned a few moments ago to show the House the strength of feeling in my area about this matter, especially about the way in which people have been treated over proposed mergers? One anonymous supporter sets out passionate feelings about such treatment. The book quotes him:
A couple of dozen suits making a decision on behalf of God knows how many followers of the game is a disgrace. It's a bit like coming home one day and finding that your walls have been knocked through, and from now on you and your neighbour are all sharing one house. What do you say? 'Thanks very much. Another time, perhaps you'd like to ask me first.
That sums up the feelings of so many.
If I may briefly stray into Featherstone, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) will allow me, I would like to quote a comment about Calder:
What is Calder to the people of Featherstone, but a river somewhere to the side of Normanton, as remote as the Ganges or the Volga … Why not call it Thatcher? She did more for the region than anyone else and you could really get some buzz on the opposition terraces when our team came out.
The central point of that comment is that 20,000 mining-related jobs have gone since 1979 in the Wakefield area; the area of Wakefield Trinity, Featherstone Rovers and Castleford. People have lost their identity, their self-respect, their standard of living and their way of life. For many, the one thing left which gives them pride is the local rugby league team. The same philosophy of greed is about to take away that as well.
People in my area are fighting back. For the first time in history, in the pubs of Wakefield last night, people drank a toast to the people of Featherstone, because your members, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Featherstone, voted by a large margin against the merger. I pay tribute to my many friends and colleagues in Featherstone for the way in which they have campaigned—rightly—against what has been handed down to them on a plate without any kind of consultation.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way while he is on the subject of mergers, relating to what is happening around Yorkshire in particular and describing the anger in the communities. He knows that in my community of Doncaster, it has been suggested that the Dons should merge with the Sheffield Eagles. The same anger prevails among the Dons' supporters about that proposed merger and 3,000 of them have signed a petition against it. A meeting in Doncaster last week with Gary Hetherington from Sheffield Eagles was attended by 400 supporters and only 16 voted in favour. The feeling is the same up and down Yorkshire on this issue. Local communities feel that they are about to lose their local rugby clubs and they will not have that. They will not sit down and take that and they are fighting against it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member wants to make a point, but interventions are supposed to be brief and not mini-speeches.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for working hard to try to sustain Doncaster. I know that behind the scenes he has done an immense amount and he is as aggrieved as I am at the way in which the affair has developed. I think that Gary Hetherington is genuinely doing what he believes to be in the interests of rugby league in south Yorkshire, although I disagree with his strategy.
I shall move on to some of the wider implications of the recent deal and developments of which the House should be aware. First, I find it particularly galling, having worked hard along with many hon. Friends, given that rugby union has for more than 99 years disgracefully discriminated against rugby league, to find out, on the very day that I reintroduced the Sports (Discrimination) Bill, that my sport of rugby league will in future, through the Murdoch deal, be discriminating against people who are not involved with Murdoch. It is not on for people to say that the future Great Britain rugby league team will be exclusive to Murdoch.
I give a commitment here and now—the Minister is aware of the issues and that my Bill will, I hope get its Second Reading on Friday—that if the Bill goes into Committee, I shall certainly try to amend it to ensure that such discrimination is made illegal. Frankly, we cannot be hypocritical and say that union is wrong in doing what it is doing yet do the same in our own game.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that many Australian rugby league fans have very deep reservations about these developments? A few days ago I spoke to two such fans on the telephone and they expressed their concern. Incidentally, before they migrated from Scotland they were Glasgow Celtic supporters so perhaps, now that they are in Australia, they have come to their senses.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Time spent in the south of England has taught me that rugby league is indeed a civilising

influence and I concur with my hon. Friend's comments. Let us consider—this issue is being discussed in Australia—the wider implications, for example, for news management because of the way in which Mr. Murdoch has moved into rugby league. Indeed, he is moving into other areas too. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Channel 5?"] Indeed, as my hon. Friends say, I was interested to note that Mr. Michael Grade, the chief executive of Channel 4, only yesterday demanded parliamentary action to check Murdoch's tentacles. Frankly, it is not his tentacles that we are after in my part of the world.
I spoke last week to a rugby league correspondent whom I have known and respected for a long time. He told me—and I believed him—that certain writers and broadcasters are no longer free to report the facts about the super league. I shall be interested to see tomorrow's reporting of this debate by certain television stations and newspapers.
There is another side to the coin which is worth flagging up. It is fairly common knowledge to a number of hon. Members that at least one non-Murdoch tabloid is planning a highly personal attack on a key figure in British rugby league. I shall say no more about that. I am sad to say that in rugby league we are involved in a dirty business.
I pay a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield for the way in which he has from the word go set out a principled position on behalf of the parliamentary rugby league group. My hon. Friend's line of opposition to the deal because of its wider implications was endorsed at a meeting of about 40 members—including hon. Members of another place—of the group last week. My hon. Friend, in particular, has pinpointed a number of implications.
My hon. Friend and I had a three-hour meeting on Monday with the chief executive and the chairman of the rugby football league, Mr. Maurice Lindsay and Mr. Rodney Walker. If my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt talk about that meeting and cite some detail of the comments that we made and, indeed, their responses. In response to my belief that they were widely seen to have sold the game's soul, they said that they had had no alternative. Their response was about the current financial difficulties facing the game.
I concede that such difficulties have to be addressed at club and board level. There are difficulties arising from the contracting system, which of course came from Australia in the first place, and difficulties with the safety at sports grounds legislation. Soccer's problems have cost rugby league clubs such as mine £13 million since that legislation was introduced. With respect to the Minister's noble efforts, we are still waiting for some real help on that front and no doubt he will comment on that later.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Many local authorities have supported the development of rugby league clubs' grounds because of the esteem in which those clubs are held in the communities. Local authorities are hard pressed and they have spent money that they do not have.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to Wakefield district council for the effort that it has made to support the three rugby league clubs. Wakefield Trinity is certainly criticising the council at present, but I said at the shareholders' meeting last week that there is a lot to


thank the local authority for in terms of the support that it has given to rugby league and Wakefield Trinity in the past.
I hope that the Minister will also mention the impact of the national lottery, which has wiped out the fundraising efforts at local club level for teams such as Wakefield Trinity. We have lost thousands of pounds as a direct result of the lottery, and the compensation that is supposed to arise from the lottery funds has not yet filtered down to the game of rugby league.
Following our discussions with Mr. Lindsay and Mr. Walker many questions remain unanswered, and I hope that we shall have further meetings with them and with the Minister. The central question that fans, supporters and people throughout the game ask me is how on earth a deal of such magnitude could be concluded without consultation with the various interested parties that surely have a role to play in the game. The players, in particular, are affected, as is the amateur game and as are a range of other organisations concerned with development.
The parliamentary group has worked hard in this place to press the interests of the game of rugby league, but we have been treated with contempt. For nearly a fortnight, no attempt was made to advise us about what was happening. The most important development in the game for 100 years was taking place, yet there was no fax, no telephone call, no letter. I feel rather aggrieved by the way in which we have been treated, and it is worth putting that on the record.
Much more important are the members of clubs, the people who pay for their season tickets and go through the turnstiles. Those are the people who fund the game where it matters—through the gates of the rugby league clubs. They feel that they have been treated with complete and utter contempt by the game's rulers, and in many areas they are angry.
I want to give my hon. Friends and Conservative Members the opportunity to make contributions, so I shall finish soon. But before I do I shall raise one or two specific questions that the Minister may be prepared to reflect on and perhaps to answer. My first question is: can the Government sit back and allow British sport to be taken apart in the power struggle that we are witnessing within the game of rugby league?
I know that the Minister's background is in rugby union, although I think that he has realised that there is a better form of rugby now that he has been to one or two rugby league matches. I am sure that he has worked it out for himself, but I must emphasise the fact that what is happening to rugby league now will be like a vicarage tea party compared with what will happen to rugby union. I do not think that many people involved with rugby union who know what is happening to rugby league are laughing about it. Despite the historic rivalries, when those people watch what is happening now they know that rugby union will be next. It will be hit in a big way and the game will be fundamentally changed.
What steps will the Minister and the Government take to defend British sport, and to alleviate the additional burdens imposed by the sports grounds legislation and by the national lottery, so that clubs such as Wakefield Trinity will be able to go it alone without Murdoch money and without the bribery that is bandied about to make people forget about their principles and forget about the history and heritage of the game of rugby league?

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is that not the crunch? Many of us share my hon. Friend's reservations about the way in which the deal was done, about Murdoch and about the lack of consultation, but there is one thing that we all know. I represent Huddersfield, where the modern game began 100 years ago, and I know it. We have to grasp the reality that we desperately need money and more spectators, and that we probably need a super league of some kind.

Mr. Hinchliffe: We need money, but do we need to prostitute ourselves on the street? That is a simple question that many of us feel deeply about. Rugby league is a game of principle, which I have supported all my life, but there are certain questions to be asked about the way that we have left some of those principles behind this time. I hope that the Minister will support the calls for an independent inquiry into the way in which the affair has been conducted. I know that the Select Committee on National Heritage has already been approached by its own members to consider the matter, and many hon. Members here today would support that request.
To be fair to the Minister, he knows about the game of rugby league and its qualities. It is primarily a local game, rooted in local communities and based on family relationships. We do not have problems at rugby league matches, and we do not really need police, whether the crowd is 77,000 or 500, because people are well behaved and have decent values. One of the strengths of rugby league is that the game itself oozes the values of decency and friendliness, and I believe that those qualities are well worth defending.

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend will be aware that my local club, Wigan, will play at Wembley on Saturday.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Just by way of a change.

Mr. Stott: It is like playing at home. At last year's fixture Wigan were playing Leeds, the same club that they will play on Saturday. There were about 70,000 people at Wembley stadium last year for that cup final, and there was not one arrest.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. There was a capacity crowd, yet I saw a police report on the match that questioned the need to police that Wembley event in future. For the record, even if Wakefield Trinity never appear at Wembley again, on the two occasions when we played Wigan we beat them.
This is an emotional issue for me—I make no bones about it. My team, Wakefield Trinity, began in 1873, based round the YMCA at Trinity church. It had its roots in Christianity, and I shall finish by quoting what one of that team's lifelong supporters, Elaine Storkey, said about the super league two weeks ago on Radio 4's "Thought for the Day":
It concerns the central values of our culture. When everything can be turned into a commodity for financial gain, it seems that nothing other than money has any ultimate meaning. Jesus asked 'What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world but to lose his soul?'. It warns us that something of soul could be lost in the north if the pleasure of local contests between neighbours is exchanged for global commercialisation. The cost may be the very meaning of the game, for even rugby league can lose its heart before the tyranny of Mammon".

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I should say that the great interest in the debate is obvious from the number of right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber. I do not recall having been in the Chair for an Adjournment debate when there have been so many people here. Bearing that in mind, I hope that those fortunate enough to catch my eye will remember that many hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am mindful of your reference to the sub judice rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall choose my words with care. Recent days have seen much conflict and many expressions of anguish; indeed, there have been explosions of anger, and those are entirely understandable. The rugby football league has brought all that about by acting with unseemly speed and above all by failing to allow spectators to have their say, as they undoubtedly should.
Decisions have been rushed in a way unworthy of an organisation that celebrates its centenary this year. It took 100 years to create the rugby league in its present form, and surely it must be disloyal to those who have supported the sport week in and week out, year in and year out, to decide on revolutionary changes in a matter of hours.
Bearing in mind the origins of rugby league, and its creation in 1895 because of discrimination practiced against rugby league players in the north of England, I, like the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), find it a matter for deep regret—indeed, I find it tragic—that the rugby football league has allowed itself to be drawn into a structure in which discrimination will be endemic.
I object especially to the element of the deal with Mr. Rupert Murdoch whereby a Great Britain team will not play international matches against an Australian team containing players not contracted to the Murdoch organisation. Some of us have fought against such discrimination, and will continue to do so.
Last year, the rugby football league published a far-seeing document entitled "The Way Forward", proposing better facilities and ways in which clubs should develop and promote themselves to a wider audience. We all support those objectives.
I want to say a little about my club. I shall not talk specifically about the composition of the super league, or give the reasons why my club should be part of it. As urged to by the rugby football league, the club has adopted a community-based approach. It has promoted in the ground every day what it calls the Cougars classroom, delivering the national curriculum to pupils. It has attracted families. It has admitted youngsters free of charge. It has initiated a scheme in which schools and pupils are encouraged to follow the pursuit of excellence. In two successive years, it has taken 1,000 schoolchildren in 20 or more coaches to Wembley to see an international match.
Now we see some of the results. Some 40 per cent. of spectators at home matches are women. Juvenile crime is said to have decreased in the town as a result of initiatives taken by the club. At Rochdale last Sunday, where the Cougars won 104–4 against Highfield, it was not just the achievements on the field that impressed. The stewards were amazed at the lack of problems among the huge crowd and the absence of litter after the game.
That community-based approach, matched by the creation of a superb team, has led to a dramatic increase in attendances from an average of 445 in 1986–87 to an average of 4,119 in the present season. Indeed, attendance has quadrupled in the past four years. A top coach, Phil Larder, and top players such as Daryl Powell, have been willing to come to a second division club to share in the excitement of reaching for the top. Obviously, however the league is organised, they expect to operate and play in the top flight.
In general terms, the exclusion of top-class teams which are doing now what some clubs still aspire to, epitomises what is wrong with the proposals. It is surely ridiculous to include teams which in some cases do not even exist yet or are incapable at present of playing top-class rugby, merely because they happen to be in the north-east, London, Humberside, Wales or, indeed, France.
It is not surprising that the majority of the mergers which Maurice Lindsay has advocated for a long time are already breaking down. How does he expect people who have followed historic clubs such as Castleford, Featherstone and Wakefield Trinity all their lives to give their loyalty to something called Calder? The hon. Member for Wakefield spoke feelingly on the matter. I know how he feels and how so many clubs and supporters feel.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: It is interesting that, when the people who have supported the game all their lives were asked their opinion in a poll in the Halifax Evening Courier, in just an hour or two more than 3,000 voted against a merger with Bradford Northern and just 300 voted for a merger. So when they were given the opportunity to say whether they wanted to stay in Halifax, they chose to do so overwhelmingly.

Mr. Waller: I acknowledge what the hon. Lady says. Unfortunately, what she says is so accurate. Sadly, the chairmen of some clubs such as Bradford Northern and Halifax are among those who have been carried away by the hype that they have heard. Justifying the stance that he took in favour of the proposals, Chris Caisley, the chairman of Bradford Northern, wrote:
now and again, there is a need to step out of Cougarland, put your feet on the ground, and get into the real world.
That was from the chairman of one of the clubs that have beaten a path to Cougars' door to find out just what Cougarmania is all about so that they can impart a little of it to their own promotion.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is Mr. Caisley who ought to be in the real world and recognise that in 1985 there would not have been a Bradford Northern without local supporters and the local authority, just as there would not have been a Keighley Cougars without local supporters and the local authority? That is the real world. It is a bottom-up, not a top-down, process.

Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman is so right. He might be interested to know that Mr. Caisley, writing presumably about Members of this House who belong to the all-party rugby league group, many of whom are in the Chamber today, wrote:
Don't be fooled by these wolves in sheep's clothing; they will disappear from the scene as quickly as they arrived. If they carry any real interest in rugby league they would be better employed minding their own business and looking after the genuine interests of their electorate.


Well, I think I know my electorate reasonably well. My guess is that, in a contest between Chris Caisley and me or any of a dozen hon. Members who are here today, I or they would win hands down. I think that Mr. Caisley owes an apology to the supporters of the Cougars and an acknowledgement that the all-party group has been around for a good few years and its members are in touch with the views of rugby league supporters from many clubs.
There are many educationists who seem to devise plans for schools which would work splendidly without any pupils. There are health professionals who reckon that the health service would be wonderful if there were not any patients. There are also some rugby league administrators who have great theories about the organisation of the game, but attach scant importance to the need to keep the fans it has right now.
Rugby league is about emotion. It is about appreciation of skill. Above all, it is about people. After all, it is the people's game. So let us have some rethinking. Let the rugby league start listening and open up the super league to fresh applications. Rugby league can still be the greatest game.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I am speaking as chair of the parliamentary group, in a debate which I hoped would never happen. I hoped that today we would be debating the National Heritage Select Committee report which concluded that, after 100 years, the rugby football league had been treated disgracefully by organised sports such as rugby union on the issue of sham amateurism. Unfortunately, that will not be the case because, days before that report was published, a secret deal was done between a small group of administrators who control the rugby football league and the Murdoch organisation. The deal that was struck was clearly and simply to undermine, damage and destroy the Australian rugby league—an affiliated international organisation legally standing on its own with a constitution and a right to manage the affairs of rugby league in Australia—and to pick up the pieces and control rugby league on a worldwide basis as a franchised outlet of the Murdoch organisation.
As a supporter of Wigan rugby league club, I could take a cynical approach and see the matter in the short term. A small but significant number of clubs which are already successful will gain access to huge sums of money in a short five-year period. I could say to hell with the rest of rugby league. However, if we are real supporters of rugby league committed to the ethos of community and the honesty of the game, we have a responsibility to ensure that, in promoting itself, the game cherishes the reasons why rugby league is anti-racist, why it does not have a criminal element and why it is a community sport.
It is an outrage that the Taylor report has bankrupted the game of rugby league. As a result of horrific incidents that took place in soccer, there was a need to change the law in Britain to make sporting stadiums safer. We all supported that. The report also covered rugby league, but no resources were given to bring its clubs up to the standards set out in that report. In the intervening years, football has received £130 million. Who says that crime does not pay? Until a few weeks ago, rugby league had been given a paltry £2 million. Yet the accumulated debt of the sport as a whole is

less than the cost of implementing the report. That left rugby league unable to resist the way in which the Murdoch organisation moved in.
In this debate I shall not criticise Maurice Lindsay or Rodney Walker. Maurice Lindsay is a good friend of mine whom I have known throughout my public life in the north-west. I have been traumatised by what this matter has done to our friendship. My trust in the views of him and other people on the future of rugby league was wiped out in three days because of Murdoch's ability to move in and place a gun at their heads. The gun was simply that if they did not sign up the sport exclusively to him, once he had destroyed Australian rugby league and the international boards, he would be back for the UK game, would pick it up for nothing and would bankrupt it.
Players are to be cherry-picked and millions of pounds will flow out of the game in the coming weeks, both here and in Australia. A small group of players will become instant millionaires while the sport at the grass roots will wither away, clubs will be left to go bankrupt and communities will see their teams and players made redundant. How can Martin Offiah honestly hold up his hand and say that he did a deal because he wanted to play for his country? The money secured in that contract alone would be sufficient to plough into an investment programme for the clubs left in the first division.
If we are serious about a super league, why will the first division be starved of capital resources, sponsorship and income, as well as the right, even if teams are successful, to apply to join the super league? A head cannot survive if the body is destroyed.
If, in Great Britain today, the Football Association announced that Terry Venables' English international team could not play a country unless that country had secured a deal giving Murdoch exclusive rights to that international programme, there would be international and national outrage. But this deal means that Great Britain cannot play rugby internationally unless the game is with a team that has a contract exclusive to Murdoch. What would be the reaction if David Platt, the England captain, could not play for England ever again because the club that he played for did not have an exclusive deal with Mr. Murdoch? That is precisely the position for Great Britain players.
Phil Clarke from Wigan is a top international athlete, not just in the international rugby league. Last year, he signed a contract, of his own volition, to play rugby league in Australia. In the past two days, he has discovered that his club has not signed up to the Murdoch deal in Australia. So the best loose forward in the world today will be banned forthwith from playing for his country unless he breaks his contract and turns his back on a legally binding document. How could such an arrangement be allowed to happen? It means that the sport has been purchased lock, stock and barrel. For the first time in Britain's history, a media magnate has bought not just a sporting event but a sport and, with that purchase, he will manipulate that sport on an international stage for the long-term aspirations of his company at the expense of the short and longer-term aims of rugby league, both here and internationally.
There are serious implications for the United Kingdom outside rugby league. The House must consider whether it is right that Mr. Murdoch or any other media mogul can decide the shape, size and rights of any sport. Is it right that a media mogul from outside the UK can control


virtually every major sporting event in the United Kingdom? Is it right that a media mogul can contract individual players and sports and, with those contractual arrangements, operate a virtual monopoly—a restraint of trade on individuals—which prevents access to that sport for any other sponsor or media agency without his prior approval?
If hon. Members want to surrender British and European sport to Mr. Murdoch, they should say so. He should not be allowed to use rugby league as a Trojan horse to undermine all those public issues.

Ms Kate Hoey: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that someone—it is difficult not to mention names and personalities—who is involved with this deal, namely Mr. Walker, is the chairman of the Sports Council? Does he feel that people are confident in how sport in this country will be handled when the same person so quickly sells out a major sport?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Rodney Walker is a man of integrity but the deal seriously compromises the whole of rugby football league and the ability of its administrators to be regarded as independent in their role in other non-governmental agencies. The Minister must be clear about the future for rugby league outside the super league. Rugby league outside the super league is massive, and not just on the, M62 corridor. With more than 50,000 players and thousands of teams, rugby league is played from Scotland to every constituent part of the United Kingdom. What happens to clubs that currently receive support from non-governmental agencies? They must not be treated as a franchise of Mr. Murdoch's and excluded from investment from other sporting bodies. Rodney Walker and others should consider whether, before making their hasty decisions, they should have thought the issues through more thoroughly.
If we are honest about the future of the game, we must also be honest about the fact that rugby league is virtually a bankrupt game. It is short of capital investment resources, and it is sometimes short of vision. But cherry picking and an international battle for a few players will cause millions of pounds to seep out of the game into the bank accounts of a few players, their agents and the lawyers who represent them, and the game will not be able to survive in the long run. The most damning indictment of the whole issue is how rugby league has lost control of events and the international rugby board has been smashed. The game can no longer be played unless Murdoch says that it can. Each day, the meter ticks on and the only people who ultimately will gain are the agents, a handful of players and a lot of solicitors.
The rugby league family must come together quickly. Some sanity must prevail in Australia and here to end immediately the cherry picking, bans and prescriptions. Unless that happens immediately, none of the £70 million will be left to invest. It will have gone for ever.

Several hon, Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the winding-up speeches will be at about 12.30 pm. Five hon. Members hope to catch my eye before then. I hope that they will be able to do so.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on raising this matter at such a crucial time. I offer my apologies to the House because I should be in a meeting which started at 12 o'clock and I cannot stay to hear the end of the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister.
As a member of the all-party rugby league group in Parliament, I must add my support to the protests against the super league proposals. I also add my protests on behalf of Batley rugby league club.
Undoubtedly, the game needs an overhaul and, as we have heard, an injection of cash, which I believe could come from worldwide television coverage. However, it appears that the rugby league authorities—whose names have been mentioned—have been unable to resist, and have jumped at the first available cash and television deal that anyone has dangled before them, which happened to come from Rupert Murdoch.
I find that surprising, when the authorities know that Rupert Murdoch is in fierce competition with his Australian rival, Kerry Packer, and they know what has happened previously. I do not understand why they could not have given the matter more thought and had the courtesy to consult some of the many people in this country, especially in the north of England, who have supported rugby league for most of their lives.
The Murdoch proposals, which demand the merger of well-known clubs throughout Yorkshire and the north-west, deserve to fail because they completely disregard the traditions of many clubs, which are synonymous with our way of life in the north.
More important, those proposals are unacceptable to the people of Batley. We are not in danger of merger but, following what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, we would be following in the footsteps of Keighley for promotion next season.
Our club has shown great determination, in the past few seasons, to gain promotion from the second division and to meet the demands of the rugby league authorities with regard to facility improvements. The club has had good sponsorship. Fox's Biscuits, a very well-known company in Batley, supports rugby league and has been most helpful. The club has achieved all its targets and is a runner-up in the second division to the champions, Keighley.
The Mount Pleasant club in Batley has spent £1.5 million on ground improvements and hopes to spend a further £2.5 million. It has no debt; although it is always desperate for money, it is not that desperate and certainly, as the hon. Member for Wakefield said, its members will not sell their souls for some immediate cash.
I have had a great deal of contact from people. I shall quote from a letter from Mr. Myers who wrote to me and with whom I have also spoken on the telephone. He says at the end of his letter:
Please forgive my rambling on, but it is difficult to write down my true feelings when, after 60 years of supporting Batley, 40 years of doing my best
in working and volunteering
to help them survive and keep rugby league going in Batley, it seems that now we face another difficulty. With the greed of Mr. Lindsay and others, it is all going to be taken away.
That epitomises what people in my district believe.
If a super league format is to replace next season's planned premier league, clubs such as Keighley, Batley and others must be allowed to take part. They have fought and worked for it, and that achievement will be snatched away. They must be allowed to take their place somewhere in the transitional super league, which will be staged between August 1995 and January 1996. Better still, I believe that the rugby league authorities and Rupert Murdoch should reconsider their proposal, because the present one is unacceptable to us in Yorkshire.
Our message to Rupert Murdoch is, take your dollars back and have a rethink.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I echo what has been said today—that the issue is not about the domestic game. The offer was made, not because the domestic game is in financial difficulties but as a result of a row between Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch in Australia.
If I might say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), with whom I always agree, clubs have been forced into bankruptcy, not only by the Taylor report but by the contract system. That is why they were in a weak position when that offer was made to them.
I echo what has been said about the chief executive and the chair of the rugby league—that they were concerned about the future of the game, and when an offer came that was worth about £75 million it was awfully difficult to resist. However, the fact that they and the chairmen of the respective clubs took that decision at Wigan in a matter of three to four hours, and tossed away 100 years of development and community spirit, caused frustration and anger the like of which I have never witnessed among rugby league spectators.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must congratulate your club, Featherstone, on speaking out. The members have said that they want nothing to do with it. The same thing occurred in Warrington. Neither Warrington nor Widnes wanted to be known as Cheshire. They are the fortunate ones; they have retained their identity, and they have retained it in the super league.
I read this morning that Martin Offiah has decided to stay in this country, but I was worried by the remarks of Mr. Robinson, the chairman of Wigan, who said that the club was enabled to put the contract together because of help from the super league and the Murdoch organisation. Will that apply to other players and other clubs when they come cherry-picking?
I mentioned Warrington and Widnes, but other mergers, such as that between Salford and Oldham, have run into difficulty. That is happening not just in Yorkshire; I understand that, in Cumbria, Workington will more or less go it alone.
I have repeatedly asked what will happen at the end of five years, because that money will be taken on a short-term basis, for five years only. If Rupert Murdoch does what Kerry Packer did in relation to cricket—if he walks away at the end of those five years—where will rugby league stand? Will 100 years of heritage have been thrown away for a mess of pottage?

Mr. Oliver Heald: I love all rugby, but I confess that I am a union man and I would not pretend to be anything else.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) criticising rugby union. After all, it was the rugby football league that broke away all those years ago, and I believe that rugby union has been entitled to protect its amateur status over the years.

Mr. McNamara: Carling!

Mr. Heald: I can hear one or two ribald comments from Opposition Members, but I think that is unfair, and I believe that it is right that the rugby union is now seriously considering the issue of payments for top players. That is to be reviewed in August.
One of the sorrows that I share from that experience is that it is likely that the vultures will be at the world cup, trying to poach some of the best players from rugby union for rugby league. That will damage rugby union, and I regret that.
I realise that there is an argument for a super league. The argument is that 26 of the rugby league clubs are bankrupt and more money is needed. We have witnessed already what money does. Wigan is a fantastic team. In the past three or four years, it has been in a league above.

Mr. Stott: Ten years.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman tells me that it is 10 years, but certainly in the past three or four years Wigan has been something very special. I believe that the reasons are that it picks the best athletes, it is able to have them as full-time players and it is able to train them at the highest level. Many rugby league clubs cannot do that. If we could have a league in which everyone could reach the standard of Wigan, what a spectacle it would be.
It is easy to criticise the authorities in rugby league and say that they lack a vision for the future, but if one were attributing to them the best motives for what they have done, one would say that they can envisage what it would be like to have a league in which all the teams were as good as Wigan and in which Wigan even found it necessary to raise the standard of its game further; what a splendid thing that would be.
An opportunity exists for rugby football league. I am not saying that the way in which it has been handled is right or that it could not be reconsidered. However, if it is possible to obtain £77 million—£1.1 million a year for each of those clubs in the next few years—it would be a tremendous thing for rugby league. I hope that those people who oppose that do not do so mindlessly and are prepared to consider options and ways forward that would not damage that opportunity for the sake of a history, which, I accept, is a proud one.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Given that the hon. Gentleman, like me, is predominantly a rugby union man rather than a rugby league man, does he recognise that the precedent that is being set in rugby league might be followed in rugby union? Indeed, in the Evening Standard today I read that a Euro-cup is about to be launched. I read that the only team that they have from Scotland is Boroughmuir. If amalgamations of Scottish clubs result, that would be inappropriate and unwelcome.


I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in urging the Minister to recognise that that would be an unfortunate precedent for rugby union.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I accept that the arrangement creates real difficulties for rugby union.
I am pulled in two directions, as I think many hon. Members will be, given the sort of spectacle that can be achieved when the best athletes play the game to the very highest standard. There is no doubt that money has a lot to do with that. In American football, the teams with the most money play the game to an incredibly high standard and they are able to maintain that standard because of the vast sums of money involved. Therefore, although I would like to protect rugby union, I can see a role for a rugby league super league—even if it damages union in the process.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am also very concerned about the future of rugby league. However, I am even more worried about the secret deal to form the super league that was stitched up behind closed doors. The Rochdale Hornets were not invited to attend the secret meeting that was held in Manchester and they are extremely upset about that.
Rugby league spokesmen said that all the chairmen of the proposed super league clubs were invited to attend the meeting. However, that was not the case. Rochdale is calling for a judicial review and I support the club in its bid, which also has the backing of a number of smaller clubs. It is asking the rugby league to consult properly about the proposals because it has certainly not done that up to now. The club is also requesting the league to consult financially. It is not too much to ask that the rugby league governing body should meet some of the smaller clubs.
The Rochdale Hornets have not seen any written proposals. What is the league afraid of? If rugby league splits in two—which is inevitable—the smaller clubs will definitely go to the wall. They must be safeguarded. We cannot allow Rupert Murdoch and his News International corporation to buy out the sport and have sole television coverage rights. The league should comply with its own byelaws.
The Rochdale Hornets are arguing for certain conditions and compensation. First, the club has requested a five-year deal, including £100,000 per annum to upgrade some of the stadiums. Secondly, it wants to retain the Challenge cup in broadly its current form—of course, Murdoch will want to scrap it. Thirdly, it favours a revised transfer tribunal scheme to provide a predetermined formula for disputed transfer deals which would stop the bigger clubs buying out the smaller ones. Fourthly—this will not benefit the club directly—the Hornets want to see a trickle-down of transfer fees to amateur league clubs to assist the development of the sport at the grass roots level. That is essential. The league must take account of the views of smaller clubs, otherwise it will be responsible for killing off rugby league as we know it.

Mr. Derek Enright: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you not only have had a distinguished relationship with Featherstone Rovers as both a player and a supporter over many years but have supported

Castleford. In our area it is very rare, if not unique, to support both those clubs. It is therefore with a degree of diffidence that I shall outline a few points about the way in which our sport has been attacked.
I turn to the question of Mr. Maurice Lindsay's involvement in the proposal. Just one month ago wesupported the principles that he enunciated in his evidence to the National Heritage Committee when he said:
The discrimination continues … players who represented Japan, Morocco, the USA and Italy were effectively told that if they competed … they would be debarred from Rugby Union on their re-entry into their own country.
Yet that is precisely the effect of the agreement that Mr. Lindsay brought back from Mr. Murdoch. As my hon. Friend the. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) pointed out extremely well in his speech, that is what will happen to those people who play for non-Murdoch teams. That is scandalous. Mr. Lindsay's evidence continued:
That discrimination … is based on hypocrisy.
No matter how one looks at it, that clearly amounts to a restraint of trade and it must be examined from that perspective.
We are also concerned about the arbitrary way in which the members of the super league have been chosen. No reason was given for debarring the whole of the second division. Mr. Murdoch has made selections within the game; he has cut people out and put people in in a totally arbitrary and unacceptable fashion.
Who is Mr. Murdoch? He is a man who was prepared to change his nationality because he wanted to buy a slice of the media in the United States of America. If a man is prepared to sell his origins in that way, how can we possibly trust him with the future of our game? If he will sell his origins, will he not sell rugby league if it happens to suit his purpose at any given time? Mr. Murdoch will control the television broadcasting rights of rugby league, which adds to the weight of the argument advanced by Mr. Michael Grade about the dangers of a Murdoch bid for Channel 5.
I should like the Minister to consider also the role of Mr. Rodney Walker. As has been said, he is the chairman of the Sports Council and he has overall authority for the sport. It was quite wrong for him to be involved in the manoeuvrings, and the Minister should address that issue in his remarks. I have a warm regard for Mr. Rodney Walker, but he has been wrong in this case.
I celebrate the results of both the Featherstone members' ballot and that conducted by the Pontefract and Castleford Express, which revealed that more than 90 per cent. of the voters opposed the current proposals. It may be that it is a case of David against Goliath—but David won in the end. The heart will not be ripped out of the Featherstone community. We will stand and fight for rugby league and for the interests of little people everywhere.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Some hon. Members may wonder why I, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, wish to speak in the debate. However, I played rugby league as a boy—I was too slow to be a wing three-quarter and not big enough to be a forward—and I number among my family friends the


late Mick Scott, Johnnie Whitely, Harry Markham, Tommy Harris, and many others whom you would recognise immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My father was a bit of a bigoted supporter. He always went to the Boulevard and he refused to enter Craven Park, even when Hull played there. As someone who played the game as a boy and who follows it still, I am deeply concerned about the recent developments. I plead with the Minister to set up an independent inquiry to examine the whole murky affair, particularly the role played by Mr. Rodney Walker.
I visited Australia over Christmas, and my wife and I stayed in Manly, which has a very famous rugby league team—as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spoke to many rugby league supporters who are concerned about the way in which the game is shaping up in both Australia and England—it is still very much a Welsh and an English game. Nevertheless, they were concerned about what was happening in Britain and Australia. They told me to beware of Mr. Murdoch and not to trust him an inch.
I make a plea to the Minister to set up an inquiry and to play the game with rugby league, as, God knows, its players and supporters deserve it. If the Minister does not set up such an inquiry, the Select Committee should take on board forthwith this deeply disturbing affair.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I shall be brief, but I know that the local club in my constituency—the Dons—is also being pushed around. I have already mentioned the opposition within the community to the merger with the Sheffield Eagles. The story is the same whether it applies to Yorkshire or to Lancashire.
Rugby league is essentially a community-based game. The community spirit is being totally wiped out by the Murdoch deal, and that is not on. Our communities are not about to be walked over by Murdoch, Maurice Lindsay or anyone else. They will not sit down and take it because Murdoch, and so on, will not break the community spirit. I hope that the House gives its backing to those people and communities to ensure that rugby league remains a family and community game.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way. The Minister will agree that we have cut down our speaking time to give many hon. Members with a real interest in the issue a chance to speak.
We have heard much from hon. Members on both sides of the House about specific examples of the disarray caused by the bid from Rupert Murdoch's News International.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on initiating the debate. His comments carry great weight thanks to his long-standing commitment to rugby league, having even played for the team which he loves and which he may have seen for the last time.
I share the concern of hon. Members who have spoken today and I hope that the Minister shares them, too. In the past, I was happy to praise the Minister's efforts when

real progress was made, as it was last April with the announcement that rugby league was to be recognised within the armed forces. That was largely due to his efforts and those of my hon. Friends on the Back-Bench committee.
The Minister is highly regarded in rugby league circles and has my genuine recognition for that, which makes it all the more surprising that he should have remained silent about the matter during the past two weeks. I do not know whether he has been muzzled by the Secretary of State, but that will become clear when he replies to the debate. I hope, therefore, that he will not take lightly my points in respect of the history of the deal and the degree to which it is divisive and discriminatory and jeopardises the future well-being of the game.
We should remember why the deal was put on the table in the first place. It did not result from Mr. Murdoch's altruistic desire to help a sport in undoubted difficulty. Instead, it arose from a battle taking place thousands of miles away in Australia, where Murdoch's interests created the breakaway Star League as a way of poaching the coverage enjoyed by great numbers of Australians, but shown on the networks of Murdoch's long-standing rival, Kerry Packer. That has already been said, but now it is on the record and it is as well that everyone knows it.
We have seen that battle before. I am sure that hon. Members will remember Kerry Packer's television coverage which caused the first manifestations of pyjama cricket in the late 1970s. If the battle is allowed to rage on unchecked, we shall end up in circumstances similar to those in the United States, where commercialism is rampant.
I remind the House that Murdoch paid almost $400 million nearly a year ago for the rights to screen the National Football League in America on his subscription Fox TV channel, ending 34 years of universal coverage. Murdoch is in the right position to build up a monopoly with rugby league as a pawn in his game. He has access to vast funds by cross-subsidising his sports broadcasting with other areas of media activities. We can rest assured that once he has built up that monopoly, he will use it to generate sufficient profits to finance a bid for world domination in another sphere of his activities, which could mean sports fans paying through the nose.
In the deal before us today, although it changes from hour to hour, Rupert Murdoch's News International will effectively become rugby league's governing body. He will decide who plays where and when, taking to the extreme the developments within the Premier League in football, when matches are moved to suit BskyB.
The deal is the precedent that could set us on a slippery slope as it involves much more than television rights negotiated through the sport's own governing body. Restriction and discrimination run through the deal like words through a stick of rock.
The players are likely to be contracted to play only against other players also contracted to News International. Individual players are being asked to pledge their contractual allegiance to a single broadcaster as if they were actors in yet another Australian soap opera. It seems that that restriction is to be extended even to national teams, such as those for the forthcoming test series.
On the basis of that deal alone, we now face a clear progression to the day when a broadcaster buys the rights to athletes, for example—the hon. Member for Falmouth


and Camborne (Mr. Coe), an eminent athlete, is in his place—and can then say, "You can run the 100 m for Britain at the next international meet only if you sign for me." The governing bodies themselves will be reduced to near puppets, implementing the broadcaster's every whim.
Viewers will be discriminated against in an obvious fashion. If they cannot afford a dish or a subscription, they will not be able to watch the sport. It is that simple. What message does the Minister have for pensioners, among millions of others, who will be denied yet another sporting opportunity?
What about those who have enjoyed the BBC's coverage of the Silk Cut Challenge cup since 1964? The BBC's contract comes up for renewal next year. Although the event may remain, what will happen to its coverage? I have heard some favourable comments, but I should like some cast-iron guarantees from the Minister.
The Department of National Heritage made its position clear in response to the National Heritage Select Committee's report on sports sponsorship and television coverage, when it reasserted its faith in the market and the general public were as far from the top of its list of priorities. The Department stands condemned by its inaction.
Fans from families who have supported the same club for generations will suffer from the spectre of those clubs being consumed in some cases and left by the wayside in others just to fit Mr. Murdoch's five-year master plan. If he decides to move on at the end of those five years, what will happen to clubs that have been forced to abandon their core support?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield expressed his profound concern about the proposed merger of three clubs to form Calder—a merger already rejected by one of the clubs involved, accepted by another and now rejected by a ballot at Featherstone Rovers—a ballot, a club and a history about which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, also care passionately, and only the traditions associated with the Chair prevent that passion from surfacing during the debate.
The deal's rejection by Featherstone Rovers serves only to highlight the lack of consultation and the hurried nature of the deal. Secret negotiations in smoke-filled rooms are no way to treat a game with such loyal and committed popular support.
The Minister would do well to remember that the anger of the rugby league fans that was reflected in some of the comments we have heard today is very real and justified. Rugby league clubs provide a focus for many communities often not provided by other means. Professional and amateur clubs alike offer opportunities for young boys and girls to learn all that the sport has to offer. That is all at stake. Whole communities have been shattered. Although that may be of no concern to some hon. Members who feel that there is no such thing as a society, who could doubt the sincerity, passion and heartfelt commitment of the communities where rugby league is as much a way of life as a sport?
There can be no doubt that all those who have spoken in the debate have the best interests of the game and their constituents at heart. I recognise that before the deal the game was in a poor state financially and that has been accepted by many hon. Members. Clubs are in no position to try to hold on to their best players when there is a bidding war for Australian clubs, and the Government are by no means blameless in that state of affairs.
The House will no doubt recall that interventions were made by a number of hon. Members when we debated football ground safety in 1989 and 1990. It was pointed out that Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough stadium disaster had exonerated the rugby league supporters who moved freely without trouble around the terraces, coming largely from the same socio-economic group. It was a shame that the Government felt unable to draw the same conclusion before imposing the burden of safety improvements without financial assistance. Consequently, rugby league clubs spent £30 million on ground improvements but received only £1 million from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Meanwhile, football was aided by more than £132 million from the Football Trust. The unacceptable financial burden on rugby league left many clubs on the brink of bankruptcy—although I recognise again the Minister's contribution to redressing the balance, albeit belatedly, by persuading the Treasury to forgo some revenue from the pools and expanding the remit of the Football Trust to rugby league.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will say whether he was aware of the Murdoch negotiations with rugby league at the time of his or the Treasury's decision and give his views on the possibility of public funds being used to cross-subsidise that bid.
We heard today of huge sums of money being offered to individual players. What is the Minister doing to ensure that smaller clubs prosper, community schemes are maintained and the game flourishes in schools? What consideration has the Minister given to fulfilling those needs? He will know from last week's business questions—at column 340 of Hansard for 20 April—that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) received from the Leader of the House a commitment that the Minister would reply to that point in this debate.
Does the Minister believe that the predicted widespread player redundancies will help to improve the game? Sport has the potential for being a great leveller, breaking down barriers and bringing communities together. That should be the aim of the Minister. In the past, rugby league has been an example of how much good sport can achieve, yet it is threatened by commercial discrimination and the restrictions of Murdoch's proposals and Packer's counter-proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that the Minister will back that call, which has been made also by Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). Only yesterday, none other than Martin Offiah said of his signing to Murdoch that he wanted to play for Great Britain—which is something that he could not do outside the super league. If that is not a trade restriction, I do not know what is. If the MMC's terms of reference do not fit that particular case, the Government should alter its terms.
I urge the Minister to use his good offices even at this late stage to bring about a better deal for this great game.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): In this extremely important debate, the passions deeply felt were well


controlled. I am sorry that we do not have time today to consider the matter in the detail and depth that it deserves. However, this is just the beginning of the debate and discussions that we intend—and I will return to that point later.
I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for initiating the debate and for something that he said on 28 April 1993, when I was sitting on one of the Back Benches, wondering how there could be a promised debate about rugby when the House was considering the Report stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill. The hon. Member for Wakefield made a powerful speech about what he saw as powerful discrimination by rugby union against rugby league. As a keen rugby union supporter, I was hearing for the first time the other side of the story. When, to my amazement, I became Minister responsible for sport shortly afterwards, I asked the hon. Gentleman to come to the Department for National Heritage to help sort out some of the difficulties that he had mentioned. I say that so that the House will know some of my bona fides.
At that meeting, the hon. Members for Wakefield and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) made three points above all. They were, "We want rugby union and rugby league to talk, which they have not done since 1895. We want to get rugby league into the armed forces, where it is currently kept out. We want something done about the ludicrous situation whereby the hooliganism and other problems in association football results in it getting help with problems of safety, whereas rugby league, which causes no problems, is paying the price." The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) mentioned that not one person out of a 70,000 crowd was charged even for swinging an odd punch after drinking at a Wembley cup final or international.
As a consequence of that first meeting, there was a meeting between Mr. Pugh and Mr. Rowlands, representing rugby union, and Mr. Walker and Mr. Lindsay representing rugby league. I do not say that it symbolised a great deal, but it was a start. Rugby league is now played in the armed forces, although perhaps not at the level that everybody would like, and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has a sum of £8 million, some of which will be available to rugby league to sort out ground safety problems. We have made progress.
I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his kind words. When I arranged for the FSA to make £8 million available to games other than soccer, I did not know what Mr. Murdoch was up to.
Even in a one and a half hour debate, it is important that the House has a chance to air its views and to let loose the passion that is felt—even though it is clear that we will not reach any conclusions today. However, the

world outside can see the passion that has been aroused. One hon. Member said that he went to Belle Vue and had seen grown men weep at what was happening to Wakefield Trinity. Those deep emotions must be expressed and the House is the best place for that. Serious principles are involved. The hon. Member for Makerfield referred to Phil Clarke, one of the finest loose forwards in the world—who, unless he breaks his contract, may find himself unable to play for his own country. One could mention many players and clubs, but that example encapsulates the problem.
As to restrictive practices and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, letters have been written to the Director General of Fair Trading and to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am not allowed to say that the implications of what is proposed for the super league are being looked at because lawyers say that if one is looking at something, one is implying that there is a conclusion. In any event, normal people would say that those letters are being looked at without prejudice, and no doubt we will shortly hear the sage advice of the director general and of my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Wakefield said that what is happening in rugby league may turn out to be a vicarage tea party by comparison with what may happen to rugby union. With the world cup in South Africa in May and June, I am sure that rugby union will be the next target on which Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Packer will set their sights.
The hon. Gentleman and many others talked about an independent inquiry. As Minister responsible for sport I have a restricted locus in the matter. The Select Committee has already said that it may return to the subject. I suggest that it should do so. I will reply to the previous Select Committee report in the middle of June, if I can knock it out in time. It might be helpful if the Select Committee turned its mind to this other matter.
If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that he thought there was a role for a super league. I pay tribute to the integrity of Mr. Rodney Walker and Mr. Morris Lindsay, who believe that, with half a dozen clubs or more having gone into receivership in the past few years, and with the total debt of the 32 clubs amounting to about £10 million, and with few clubs turning a profit this year, something must be done.
We have heard today that rugby league needs an overhaul; it needs an injection of cash. It is not for me to tell rugby league what to do, but so much is fairly clear. We have to balance the financial problems of the game against the emotions, the community links, the culture of the game and the oozing of values to which reference has been made—decency, for one. All these are important.
I suggest that the Select Committee turn its mind to this subject again and conduct a forensic inquiry—that can be done quickly. Secondly, the hon. Member for Wakefield may like to bring a delegation to discuss the matter further with me.

State and Private Education

1 pm

Mr. George Walden: My purpose in this debate is to bring to the Floor of the House a matter of great importance, yet one which both Government and Opposition spokesmen seem strangely reluctant to tackle. I refer to the willingness of a number of private schools to consider moving into the state sector of education.
The news that Manchester grammar school and other prestigious schools formerly in the state sector might be interested in returning to it was met with uncomfortable silence by spokesmen on both Front Benches. It will be a sad day for the Commons if new thinking on how to overcome the damaging gulf between private and state education, for which there would be wide support in the country, found no echo in the House.
The subject of independent versus state education is encrusted with myths. The central myth, subscribed to by all parties, is that it is possible to develop a high-quality system of state education in a country where the richest, most successful and most influential people have nothing to do with it. I refer, of course, to the 7 per cent. of parents who exercise their absolute right to send their children to private schools. I am not sure how far Front Benchers believe this myth in their hearts, and how far they find it necessary to subscribe to it out of custom and expediency.
In the world as it is developing, I see no future to speak of for this country unless it learns to live not off its past but quite literally off its wits. That means high levels of education for all. Yet, if the apex of an entire society shuns the state system like the plague, how will it ever be possible to attain high standards there? Other European countries have private sectors of education, but Britain is unique in one crucial respect: the best schools are in the independent sector, and they remain overwhelmingly the preserve of the socially privileged and the well-to-do.
That statement will cause irritation on both sides of the House. Some truths about Britain are so painful that mere mention of them arouses indignation on the left and on the right. The fact that, if people want good schooling for their children, they will be well advised to buy it is one such truth.
The left would object that there are good schools in the state sector. Provide them with sufficient resources, the argument goes, and they will give the private schools a run for their money. Obviously there are some good schools in the state sector, notably in well-to-do areas, yet to claim that the state system as a whole, properly financed, could challenge the private system on quality is self-delusion.
The reason lies in the misconceived philosophy of egalitarianism which, despite the Government's welcome attempts at reform, holds much of the state sector in its deadening grip. If our fundamental approach to education is flawed, we can have the best paid teachers in the world, wall-to-wall facilities and one-to-one teaching—and still produce mediocrity. Until the left faces up to that fact, its education policies will remain mired in dogma and social sentimentalism. My advice to the left is to go back to its pre-egalitarian roots, to the high ideals of the Workers Education Association in the 19th century, and to the thinking of Tawney, a stalwart opponent of levelling down.
We must get away from the old debate. I am not advocating a return to the grammar school/secondary modern system; I advocate a new system of differing

schooling for children with differing gifts, in which the former direct grant schools would have their place in the education community. State education is in desperate need of peaks of excellence. If they existed, the private sector would get a run for its money indeed. If Labour is hag-ridden by the notion of selection by ability, how about access by aptitude? I am here to be helpful.
Conservatives have a more sensible education policy, but what is our position on private schooling? That it is an inalienable right I accept. Policies designed to damage it, whether by the imposition of VAT or by the discontinuation of charitable status, would be sterile exercises in class vengeance, that would do no one any good. But when Conservatives claim that private education is a matter of choice, they are producing the right's mirror image of the left's self-delusion about facilities and resources. Where is the choice for someone on £12,000 a year?
In our traditional debates on education, it is at this point that the assisted places scheme is brought up by our side. The truth is that many of the Opposition's objections to the APS are grounded in fact. It is enormously expensive. I know of no evidence to show that the money goes chiefly to those in need; and I could regale the House with shocking examples of taxpayers' money going to people in large houses who have fallen on a rough patch in their finances. There is evidence that some of the money goes to Lloyd's names. That is nice for the names, but is it really in the spirit of the assisted places scheme?
Even for the bright working-class child, is it such cause for self-congratulation that we award scholarships to children to rescue them from the state sector? I can see why the independent schools like the scheme. I can see how it can help this or that child as a sort of emergency exit. I can see why it warms our social consciences to hand out scholarships. In Dickensian times such a policy would have looked enlightened. But shoring up our apartheid system of schooling by subsidising private establishments seems a poor philosophy of education at the end of the 20th century. It carries with it a suggestion of defeatism, an implication that state schools can never hope to do well by poor, able pupils, so the latter had better get out. How much better to have the best available to all.
Voucher schemes are another form of evading the issue. The theoretical advantages are attractive, but in the Britain we know, the practical effects would be catastrophic. All that would happen is that the 7 per cent.—the escapees from the state sector—would swell to some 20 per cent., as those who could afford it topped up their vouchers and swam headlong for the other shore. The result would be that even more of the socially and financially advantaged would have even less of an interest in where the nation was going, in education terms, than before.
What is our aim? Do we want to end up like America, where the gulf between public and private widens by the year, where people with money convey their children to private schools in self-locking cars, then retreat behind the security gates protecting their homes to shield themselves from the social consequences of a sub-educated nation? Or do we want to aspire to the best continental models, where the good schools are state schools, open to all on the basis of talent, aptitude, hard work and intelligence?
In Britain, the best private schools have demanding teachers, small classes, adequate facilities and traditions of excellence, and have remained largely, although not


entirely, immune from the experiments that have proved the curse of the state sector. Nothing should be done to damage them, but everything should be done to open them up to the country and to spread the habit of competition for excellence throughout the system. In modern Conservative thinking, it is called the internal market.
This cannot be done by coercion, and to describe what I propose as nationalisation is evidence of old thinking. If it is done, it must be done voluntarily. A few years ago, the idea of first-rate private schools opting into the state sector would have seemed a pious hope. What has happened recently has changed all that. It is not just Manchester grammar—alma mater, as it happens, of the new deputy Governor of the Bank of England, the illustrious Mr. Howard Davies, who said recently on the radio that his parents would not have been able to afford to send him there nowadays.
I have in my possession about 70 letters from the heads of the 120 former direct grant schools, written sometimes in a personal capacity, and indicating sympathy for my proposals. I expect more such letters. This is not a drop in the ocean. I am talking of the potential for 100,000 places.
Naturally, such schools are wary. They have had bad experiences at the hands of politicians in the past. They treasure their independence, and would consider a move only if they were allowed to enrol pupils by examination. Yet what strikes me most of all is that they are thinking in terms that have left the House of Commons unable to respond. Which of us is out of touch: the schools or the Commons?
What would be the reaction of the man in the street to the news that the most prestigious school in his area, closed to him for decades, was to be reopened to him free of charge? Undiluted approval. What is the Conservative response to the prospect? A strange reticence. It puzzles me why a party that has spent so much time denouncing the left for driving direct grant schools into the private sector evinces so little enthusiasm when those schools show signs of wanting to come back into the public sector.
Why is there such hesitation? Malicious critics may wonder whether our hearts are in state education or in the preservation of privilege. I understand the money problem. Reabsorbing such schools would be expensive, but the cost of our present system of educational apartheid, in terms of under-achievement and unemployability, is incalculable.
Moreover, as Manchester has shown, there is no reason why well-off parents who continue to qualify for entrance should not continue to pay a measure of fees. It would also be possible to redeploy some or all of the assisted places scheme money to help open such schools to able children—not as isolated acts of charity, but as of right.
Let us imagine for a moment that we showed enough imagination and resourcefulness to do that. Would Labour object on doctrinal grounds of opposition to selection? If it did, the Prime Minister could have a high old time at the Dispatch Box. He could ask whether Labour would prefer a continuation of selection by money. Would it prefer to keep some of the best schools in the country closed to many people who cannot afford them? Is Labour's to be a dog-in-the-manger policy? Is it prepared to tolerate high academic standards in the private sector, providing that they are not available to ordinary folk?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education meeting me to discuss the subject. Before she did so, I was invited to meet the Leader of the Opposition, to whom I am also grateful. My aim is to open up a more constructive inter-party debate, of the kind that is beginning to take shape on grant-maintained schools. Former direct grant schools are hardly likely to take the plunge and leave the independent sector if Labour, in power, were to force them back.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is somewhat preoccupied at the moment. The finances of our schools are a pressing priority, but, in the last resort, it is the ghost in the machine that determines educational standards. There are signs that the Opposition are edging up, slowly and crabwise, to the problem of quality. Whatever else he might be, the Leader of the Opposition does not give me the impression of being an unthinking educational dogmatist. Who knows where he might eventually go? It would be a sad day for the Conservatives if, like some exhausted marathon runner, we were seen to pass the baton of educational innovation to the left.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I shall begin by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on education in the state and independent sectors generally, and on former direct grant schools in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) implied in his closing remarks, it makes something of a change from what might be termed the subject of many recent education debates.
I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend. As well as being a former Education Minister, he has the skills to write a regular and good newspaper column, and it would be easy for me to be jealous or envious, such are his skills. The House is grateful for the time that he has already put into this subject, which has attracted a great deal of publicity. In the light of what he said, I shall make one or two comments, but I begin with one or two queries.
The first query relates to the way in which my hon, Friend described the 7 per cent. of people who choose to use private schools. I do not have any scientific breakdown of the numbers involved, but my clear impression is that a considerable number of parents who use private schools can by no means be described as the richest, most successful and most influential people. None the less, they choose to forgo holidays and new cars in order to avail themselves of private education for their children.
Of course, that figure includes those who avail themselves of the assisted places scheme without attracting the full rebate, but also a number who somehow find the full fees without remotely being capable of being regarded as that "apex of society" to which my hon. Friend referred.
I understand from ISIS—the Independent Schools Information Service—that an estimated 54 per cent. of parents with children at private schools did not themselves receive such an education. I think we can agree that that is scarcely proof that there is some permanent ruling caste or clique that enjoys that status. I have here the latest income breakdown figures for those who use the assisted places scheme. They reveal that some 92 per cent. are earning less than £20,000, which is not a great sum in today's climate.
We should not forget that schools such as Manchester grammar school and Dulwich college could easily fill all their places without recourse to the assisted places scheme, but their commitment to the scheme is important, because it enables them to give as wide a social mix as possible—something in which they have always believed and with which my hon. Friend identified strongly.
One point that came through clearly during my hon. Friend's speech was the excellence of former direct grant schools. They are not only popular with parents and pupils—if schools could ever be deemed to be popular with pupils—but appear to be especially popular with many shades of politicians. As the House will recognise, that is quite an achievement. However, such schools are deservedly popular. They have an exceptional academic record, but their contribution to the children in their care goes far beyond academic results. They also have an excellent record in meeting the needs of their pupils, guiding them towards their ambitions and instilling a sense of pride in their achievements. Many are in inner-city areas and no strangers to deprivation. They have provided ladders of opportunity for many able children. Moreover, they have done so for many years.
Until the Education Act 1944, secondary education was provided only for a minority. Schools were conducted by voluntary bodies or local authorities, which received appropriate grant from central Government, but fees could also be charged. In 1944, fees were abolished in secondary schools maintained by local authorities. Schools run by voluntary bodies and receiving grant from local authorities therefore became voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled.
More than 230 schools receiving direct grant—or DG—at that time had the option to retain DG status on new terms, becoming voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled, or becoming independent. The new terms of the Education Act 1944 stipulated that, in DG grammar schools, 25 per cent. of places should be free and filled by pupils educated for at least two years at a maintained or grant-aided primary school, a further 25 per cent. of places or more could be reserved by the local education authority, and fees for remaining day places should be remitted according to sliding income scales. Assistance with capital costs was also available.
When, in 1975, the then Labour Government made clear their intention to end all forms of selection in secondary schools, there were 167 DG grammar schools, catering for some 104,000 pupils. Legislation followed, and, under the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation of Grant) Regulations 1975, 42 DG grammar schools became maintained—in other words, they moved completely into the public sector—five closed, and 120 became registered independent schools.
When the assisted places scheme was established under the Government in 1981, it was expected that the former direct grant grammar schools that had become independent would wish to join the scheme. The scheme would enable them to remain true to their overriding ethos of maintaining as wide a social mix as possible. All but one of the 120 schools applied, and were subsequently admitted to the scheme. Although they represent only 40 per cent. of the schools in the scheme, they presently cater for about 65 per cent. of the pupils.
There are now 294 schools in England in the scheme, offering more than 34,000 assisted places altogether. It is reaching those we intended to help. Nearly 70 per cent.

of the pupils have come from maintained primary schools; well over a third qualify for a totally free place; and, as I said earlier, 80 per cent. have family incomes below the national average. Assisted place pupils achieve pass rates that average more than 90 per cent. at GCSE and A-level—better than their peers in independent or maintained schools—and 90 per cent. go on into higher education. It is scarcely surprising, then, that there is a full take-up of available places on entry.
The scheme is an outstanding success. Standards in schools that participate in it are among the highest in the country. The Government want to see the benefits offered by good independent schools enjoyed more widely. The scheme is reaching those we intended to help, and gives a real and meaningful choice to those who would never otherwise be able to consider an independent education. It gives excellent results, and we intend that it should stay. We believe that it is vital to make independent education available for able pupils from less well-off families.
Our records show that the number of pupils at those schools has remained fairly constant over the 20 years since DG was abolished. Indeed, the 120 schools show a slight increase in numbers over the past four to five years, with more than 98,000 pupils now on their rolls.
I am sure that my hon. Friend believes, as I do, that former DG grammar schools should continue to be able to offer the excellent education they do, and be true to their original ethos of having as wide a social mix as possible. Where we perhaps differ is how that objective should be achieved.
We need to be aware of the scale of the costs involved should the former DG schools come into the maintained sector. I shall take as an example Manchester grammar school, to which my hon. Friend referred. The school has at present approximately 1,430 pupils on roll, and fees are about £4,000. Some 260 pupils at the school are assisted place pupils, and the average cost to the Department of those pupils in the academic year 1993–94 was about £3,100. The total sum paid to Manchester grammar school by way of fee remission for its assisted pupils last year was therefore about £820,000.
There are many ways in which one could cost out a possible re-entry of Manchester grammar school to the maintained sector, but, for the purpose of illustration, let us assume that we were to fund all pupils on the same basis as they are at present funded by the APS—the scheme does, after all, contain an element of "topping up" of fees by parents, which is quite appropriate for what we are discussing today.
In all, the cost would be about £3.5 million to £4 million. That is, of course, based on the current level of funding at the school, but at first sight it would be unrealistic to assume that the funding for former DG grammar schools could be significantly higher than it is for other maintained schools, should they re-enter the maintained sector.
We have been debating whether the former DG grammar schools should or could re-enter that sector, but, of course, there is already in place a specific mechanism for independent schools to do so, and I make just passing reference to that.
In our most recent piece of legislation, we provided the opportunity for independent schools in general to become grant-maintained. Since 1944, independent schools have been able to look to the voluntary-aided route into the


maintained sector. The extension of opportunities to provide for the GM route fills a gap. That route is open to all types of school, including those that select by ability.
Naturally, we need to know the extent to which additional places are needed in the area, but a key factor is also the contribution that such schools could make to enhancing the choice, diversity and quality of provision in the area—and therefore contribute to our policy aims of raising standards and increasing opportunity.

Mr. Walden: The tendency of my hon. Friend's argument worries me slightly, because it seems to be pointing in the direction of inaction. By arguing that it would cost money to bring in former DG schools, and then saying, as I believe he did, that he could not envisage a situation in which some schools in the state sector would be financed better than others, and going on to point out that of course there are grant-maintained schools, and that technically it is possible for a private school to come over now, he is, in real life, shutting the door to any significant movement across the frontier between state and private.
As I know from my inquiries of the Department, schools of the calibre of Manchester grammar or the other former DG schools are not coming across into the state sector and never will if they have to cut their costs to state costs and abandon their selective entry. I am afraid that my hon. Friend's argument is tending towards a policy of passivity on what I regard as the fundamental problem of the British educational system—our two-nation approach.

Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for further clarifying and underlining his view in that respect. I hope that I am not—and will not be, particularly when I finish my speech—open to the charge of passivity, which he alleges. There is still an extra dimension, to which I shall return in the remaining few minutes, which will make reference to the only other aspect that could meet my hon. Friend's desires.
My hon. Friend made reference to the attitude of the Opposition. I simply observe in passing that the Opposition claim to be meritocratic, but are opposed to selection on merit. They are opposed to the assisted places scheme, and have not withdrawn their commitment to phase it out. They also appear to have set their minds against charging parents for any curriculum activity. Those three points lead me to conclude—cautiously, I

stress—that the former DG schools can in practice expect little solace from the Opposition when they discuss how their future may be secured.
Let me go to the heart of the matter in the remaining minutes at my disposal. The proposals by Manchester grammar school, which started this debate, indicate an entirely understandable desire to ensure and guarantee the funding of the former DG schools, and to maintain their social mix. But we should be clear why they are entering the debate at all. Clearly, they are responding to the energetic endeavours of my hon. Friend, but they are also entering the debate—as I know my hon. Friend would concede—because of the Opposition's hostility to the assisted places scheme. If it were not for the commitment of the Labour party to phase out that scheme, DG schools would not be forced to consider how they might be able offer places in their schools to the very children whom the scheme now funds.
When looking at the alternatives, it must be understood that the level of funding, with which my hon. Friend and I are in total agreement, from those schools' fees gives them a significantly higher level of funding than they could expect from state funding, whether they were grant-maintained or voluntary-aided. Increased public expenditure of that order would be difficult to justify, and the reality would certainly be increased costs. We are all agreed on the excellence of the schools that we are debating, but it is by no means unusual for their fees to be about £5,000 or £6,000.
Of course we must seriously consider the future of the schools, and I underline to my hon. Friend that we shall continue to listen to their concerns and the concerns that he has expressed today. But I am not convinced at the moment that we should necessarily turn the clock back some 50-odd years and contemplate charging for state-funded education for the compulsory years by some top-up mechanism for those parents who can afford it. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that that is the other way in which, without extra funding from the Government, the circle could be squared on the funding aspect.
The best answer that we have is a system which gives the choice of independent education for as many as possible regardless of income, and, in so doing, to target the finite resources that we have as effectively as possible. We already have such a solution, which I believe is an excellent solution, in the assisted places scheme, which is a meaningful plank in our overall Government policy of choice and diversity.
I willingly undertake today—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move on to the next topic.

Non-domestic Rates (Scotland)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity in this Adjournment debate to address some of the difficulties being faced in Scotland as a result of the non-domestic rates that have been announced for the current financial year.
At first blush, it might appear to be passing strange for me to be registering vigorous protests with Ministers such a relatively short time after many of the anomalies of the differing systems of business rates north and south of the border have been resolved and a uniform business rate achieved for the first time. I want to say early on, and without qualification, that that is welcome as far as it goes. Some of the anomalies with which we have had to live in the past were quite untoward. The Government were right to recognise that, and the parity that has been established is extremely welcome.
But the uniform business rate is a uniform business rate poundage. It is nothing more or less than that. It does not mean that we pay the same rates; it means that we pay rates bills which are based on rateable values multiplied by a common uniform rate poundage.
The one factor that is not uniform is, alas, as I shall seek to argue, particularly in relation to south-east Scotland, the rateable value, and that in turn is dependent on factors which are highly variable region by region. Scotland is now in some respects at the disadvantage of playing the business rates game on a level playing field with England.
I am not aware—I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—of any area in Scotland where commercial rentals have significantly dropped during the past five years. Contrariwise, at the same time, London rentals have decreased by up to 60 per cent. in some specific cases during that same period.
The national average valuation increases have been significantly depressed by the changes that have occurred in London and in other parts of the south-east of England, where property rentals have fallen due to the recent depression. However, virtually all Scotland is now left with increases above that average. Apply the uniform business rate poundage to the above-average valuation increases, and we have a problem of above-average rate bill increases in Scotland, certainly in some areas such as the Borders region.
I should like to know how the figure of a rate poundage for Scotland was arrived at. If the Minister cannot deal with the point today, he might take the trouble to try to explain it to me in writing. We have been in correspondence about a couple of constituency cases, for which I thank him.
For example, I should like to know what power the Secretary of State had at his disposal to set the uniform business rate at a lower level in Scotland. If he did have the power to set it at a lower level than 43.2p, why did he not choose to exercise that power?
Will the Minister confirm, as I am sure he can, that that power was used in Wales to set a uniform business rate different from England at a level of 39.8p? There is certainly a body of opinion within the business community in Scotland that believes that the rate could easily have been set at a lower level, perhaps 2p or 3p in the pound lower,

during the five-year revaluation period. There are some who believe that a rate as low as 35p could have been set. But what is the Government's response to the charge that the overall tax take from business in Scotland is too high during this revaluation period?
Further to the inquiry about the process by which the figure was arrived at for this year, on 29 November 1994 the Secretary of State issued a press statement publishing figures of forecast average movements in rateable values for broad categories of business property by local authority region. There was a written answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland to a question tabled by the Minister, who was then at a lower level of life as a Back Bencher, no doubt assiduously doing his constituency work, asking questions that would never otherwise have occurred to him. That was a helpful answer as far as it went, one sentence of which said:
Taking together the effects of the forthcoming revaluation with this decision on the level of the rate poundage, I estimate that there will be significant local and sectoral shifts in rate burdens.
I repeat:
significant local and sectoral shifts in rate burdens."—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 687.]
I should like to know exactly what evidence the Minister had of the extent of those changes and differences. I have real fears that the survey system that he used was inadequate for the task. I should like to know what level of information was provided by local assessors, who, of course, are responsible for the process of revaluation in relation to a sample of property throughout the country.
But the decision that was taken to set the uniform business rate at 43.2p in the pound must have been taken only after careful assessment of those estimated average figures by the assessors for regions throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. The figures that were produced by the Government in the process of setting the uniform business rate included an average forecast figure of an increase for the Borders of 23.2 per cent. That was the figure on which the Government's decision to set the uniform business rate at 43.2p in the pound was based.
I was puzzled at the time that that increase was as low as it appeared to be, but I received confirmation of that concern when a report published by the director of finance in Borders regional council in January stated that the provisional estimates provided by the regional assessor to him showed that, on average, rateable values—admittedly, excluding formula-valued public undertakings—would increase not by 23.2 per cent. but by 32 per cent. That is a significant difference.
The director of finance went on to confirm what was said to the Minister in the written answer of 29 November, when he said that the result of the changes would be
very significant shifts in the rate burden both between different sectors of non-domestic ratepayers and different areas of the country".
I am well aware of the transitional protection scheme. The Minister will make much of that, because he has done so properly in the correspondence that we have had on the various individual cases that I have raised with him.
I have a strong sense of deja vu in all this, because in 1985, when the Minister was otherwise engaged in business, earning perhaps a more honest living than he is as a Minister at the Scottish Office, when the present Lord Younger was the Secretary of State for Scotland, I, through the various opportunities available to Back-Bench


Members of Parliament—I think, from memory, that it was a ten-minute Bill—tried to get the Government to see the difficulties experienced by businesses faced with swingeing revaluations.
I brought forward a scheme on the information available to me on the increases that were being imposed on businesses, particularly small businesses in the Borders. I openly admit to doing a calculation on the back of a cigarette packet, which suggested that at least £5 million was necessary in order to remedy the problems of the day at that stage.
I remember the ignominy of being taken to task by Ministers, who subsequently recognised the error of their ways and introduced a scheme that eventually cost nearly £15 million. I was then attacked for asking for only £5 million, which was pretty rough justice. I have felt badly about that ever since. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he contemplates the result of this afternoon's debate.
I am aware that the transitional protection scheme is in place. It is fine so far as it goes, but it is extremely inadequate in a number of different respects. First, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that transitional protection does not apply to water and sewerage rates. Certainly, in south-east Scotland, water and sewerage rates are a significant factor in businesses' total rate bill. To exclude any transitional protection from that element of bills will be a penal impost on some businesses, especially those that use a lot of water.
Secondly, the transitional protection scheme is to be phased out over a five-year period. The Minister may know that I tabled a prayer to the order that introduced the scheme. I was hoping to have a debate in a Statutory Instruments Committee, so that I could argue that the scheme was inadequate. I was happy and lucky enough to secure this Adjournment debate, which serves the same purpose, so I shall not pursue the prayer and seek a debate.
In considering the detail of the scheme, I was anxious to try to get the Government to be as forthcoming as possible—I understand that constraints exist—about what will happen in the subsequent four years if the protection level that has been announced and is clear for this year is not maintained throughout the five-year period. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about that.
The Minister must understand that, even with the benefit of transitional protection, many of my constituents will face an annual increase of 12.4 per cent. for the next five years—the full period of this revaluation. They will not catch up. They will always be in the transitional protection scheme. Those valuation increases will be further compounded by the next revaluation in the year 2000. Those businesses face increases far beyond what we all hope and anticipate the increases in the inflation level will be over that period.
In addition, industrial derating is to be summarily withdrawn. I understand the reason for that—it is part of ensuring parity with the position in England—but it places businesses in the Borders and throughout the rest of Scotland in a serious position.
Derating of caravan parks is being abolished. I have already been in correspondence with the Minister about that. As I have said at least twice, he has responded in

writing, but that does not take the situation forward very much for Greenlaw caravan park, for example. Last year, it had a rateable value of £7,000; this year, it is £17,700. Of course, the 10 per cent. transitional process will protect it to a certain extent, but it will take years, if ever, to get around the withdrawal of the derating of caravan parks. Such an increase is unconscionable.
As if all that were not enough, a 50 per cent. charge is about to be imposed on persons entitled to possession of properties that have been unoccupied for three months. I understand why that has been introduced—again, it is part of ensuring parity with the position in England—but 500 properties that have been left empty in the Borders will suddenly and summarily be hit with a bill. Some of them will be hit on 1 April if they have been left empty for the previous three months and are not in any of the exempt categories. That will come as a shock, and a considerable financial impost, to the 500 property owners in the Borders in that position.
Many of my constituents and the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) will face considerable increases in rate bills in 1995–96 and in later years, even with the proposed transitional arrangement.
I do not know for sure, because I do not have the same direct experience of other parts of Scotland, but serious and legitimate concerns exist about how the revaluation in relation to the uniform business rate, transitional protection and the other factors will affect the viability of businesses in future.
From a regional point of view, a serious consequence exists. One of the few competitive advantages available to Borders businesses has been in the form of rate poundages, which have consistently been among the lowest in Scotland. Significantly, following the introduction of this year's uniform business rate, that advantage will be lost.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I welcome the opportunity given by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to deal with the subject of non-domestic rates in Scotland. The advent of the uniform business rate, coupled with revaluation, has introduced some misunderstandings and concerns throughout the country. It gives me the opportunity to go through once again some of the announcements which have been made in past months, but which perhaps have not all been brought together so that people can understand the position.
Obviously I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the advent of the uniform business rate. Clearly, for many years, businesses in Scotland had been looking for a level playing field north and south of the border. In the past five years, the Government have been progressively reducing the rates burden on Scottish businesses. By last year, Scottish businesses were paying some £500 million less than they would have been if the poundages previously set when under local authority control had continued to rise in line with inflation.
Instead, the Secretary of State for Scotland provided the resources to reduce the burden, and all businesses share the lasting benefit of the progressive reduction, with the introduction this year of the uniform business rate at the same level as south of the border.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Secretary of State could have introduced the uniform business rate at a lower level. To an extent, he could have, but he has already said that the maximum difference that he could have set was between 1p and 2p less. Clearly, he rightly chose to pursue the linkage with business rates south of the border, which was the long-term objective of business in Scotland. It has asked for a level playing field.
If the equation went the other way, the hon. Gentleman would not wish the uniform business rate to be set higher in Scotland, with rates back to being higher than south of the border. My right hon. Friend has taken the long-term view, to try to give business the stability and security it seeks.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about assessment in relation to revaluation. The revaluation draws on recent rental evidence to update the relativities in the rates burden between different properties. As he appreciates, that means that, for some properties, values will go up, whereas for others they will go down. Not surprisingly, at the level of rateable value, more rise than drop.
Rates bills take account of those new rateable values, together with the new rate poundage. On that basis, increases in rates bills are not as great as they might have appeared when people received their rateable value assessments. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, but I state it so that the complete story is on the record.
It was important to the Secretary of State to ensure adequate transition to prevent any significant rise. On the method of revaluation, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, to set the uniform business rate level, my right hon. Friend had to have an assessment of what would happen after the revaluation. The assessors had until 15 March to prepare the valuation rolls, which was obviously not in time to determine the rate poundage which would take effect from the beginning of April.
As the assessors were preparing for the revaluation, the Scottish Office sought estimates of the emerging picture from them and from our colleagues in the Department of the Environment who were obtaining similar estimates from the Valuation Office Agency south of the border. On the basis of those estimates—I emphasise that they were estimates of the emerging picture—we determined the appropriate poundage and the transition arrangements. From the figures, which were published in November, it was clear that there would be a wide divergence in the movement of rateable values and rate bills between different regions and between business sectors, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
It is too early to get carried away and to say that the estimates were anything other than good estimates. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all of us as constituency Members of Parliament have had a significant number of businesses complaining to us about the high level of percentage increases. However, to get an average, one has to have people who are above the average and people who are below it. Inevitably, those who are below the average and who have calculated the amounts are less likely to come to us than are those who have big increases.
I may be able to give the hon. Gentleman some comfort. I have ensured that my officials have embarked on a detailed analysis of the actual valuation rolls, to assess how close the actual has been to the approximation.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is at least half an answer to my question; half a loaf is better than no bread. I understand that we are in a hiatus, because we shall not know the

exact position until the full published revaluation rolls are available in May. Will the Minister undertake in the intervening period to let us know what the sample size was? I do not expect him to give an answer this afternoon. Will he, in the fulness of time, make it absolutely clear what the sample surveys were which informed the decision taken in November to set the UBR at 43.2p?

Mr. Kynoch: I will indeed ensure that a letter is sent to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he appreciates that one could operate only on a sample at that stage, to have the estimate on which one could base the calculation for the level of business rate. It is important to ensure that local authorities have adequate funding to provide the services that they have to provide.
I now move on to the transitional period which the hon. Gentleman has rightly welcomed—

Mr. Kirkwood: Grudgingly.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that he welcomes it grudgingly. One has to use judgment in the adjustment in the revaluation process which takes place once every five years. In every revaluation process, there can be winners and losers. Some people have seen the prospect of significant gains in their rateable values. Those gains are, as I am about to describe, restricted in the transitional scheme, partially to fund the transitional arrangements for those who will lose.
The extremely important point for the Government in the whole exercise was to try to avoid sudden changes in outgoings which could fall on businesses, especially small businesses. I know that there is a significant number of small businesses in the Borders, and to that extent, the transitional scheme may have a greater effect there than in areas where there is a higher proportion of larger businesses. It is important that we try to ensure that small businesses do not have enormous outgoings.
On that basis, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the transitional scheme, which will restrict the amount of business rate increase paid by anyone who has to suffer an increase. The increase for properties with rateable values in excess of £10,000 is restricted to 10 per cent. in real terms. For smaller businesses with rateable values of less than £10,000, the figure is restricted to an increase in real terms of 7.5 per cent.
The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that that protection will continue for the full five years at the level of 7.5 per cent. and 10 per cent. in real terms. It will continue until the next revaluation in 2000. There is no reason for anyone to fear an undue increase in rating bills in the next five years. The scheme is being funded this year, partly through the restrictions on gains for those who have benefited, and partly through the £72 million which the Exchequer has granted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the impact on small businesses. I want to get across the point that small businesses have received their revaluation notices. In some cases, the figure is significantly up from previous valuations. Clearly, those businesses have time to appeal against the valuations if they believe that they are not right.
For the sake of the record, I tell the House that businesses have from now until September, or six months from the date of their notice, to appeal. The appeal will,


of course, be considered by the local assessor, and, if agreement cannot be reached with him, by a totally independent valuation appeal committee.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Borders region in particular. Although I do not want to invite a surge of appeals—

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will get them anyway.

Mr. Kynoch: From the information that I have gleaned so far—obviously, it is early days—the level of appeals submitted in the early days is not unexpectedly high; it is at the level anticipated. The appeals procedure is there to try to ensure that a fair valuation is achieved. In some cases, the figure may be brought down on appeal.
The hon. Gentleman talked about industrial derating being withdrawn. The whole point of industrial derating was to try to ensure that there was a level playing field between the methods of valuation north and south of the border. We are assured by both the Valuation Office Agency and by the assessors that we now have complete harmonisation in the valuation procedures north and south of the border, so there is now no longer a need for that derating.
The hon. Gentleman referred to caravan parks. I suspect that the reason why he wrote to me about a particular caravan park was that a circular was sent to caravan parks in England and Wales which alerted them to the significant increases they might face.
Derating for caravan parks in Scotland was reintroduced in 1990. We had believed that we had complete harmony between the two methods of valuation. When we discovered that we did not, the assessors agreed

that we should have a derating policy for caravan parks. However, I am happy to look at the case of Greenlaw caravan park, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If the caravan park owner believes that it is not a fair valuation, he should go through the appeals procedure.

Sir David Steel: He is not the only one.

Mr. Kynoch: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not the only case, and I understand that point. His hon. Friend gave the caravan park as an example. If any other caravan park believes that it has not been assessed fairly, it can go for appeal, and it will then have a valuation on which it can work. Caravan parks are protected thereafter by the transitional scheme. I hope that, as a result of all this, there can be a fair basis of valuation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned water, which I shall refer to briefly in the final few seconds. Water, of course, is a different issue and it is open to any business to apply for metering of water supplies and be charged on that basis if it does not like being charged through the rating system.
In short, I believe that the advent of the UBR and, indeed, the harmonisation of the valuation procedures north and south of the border provide the level playing field which we have all sought for business in Scotland. Business has long sought the ability to compete on a level playing field and I believe that it now has it. It is interesting that the Opposition and the Labour party in particular advocate a clear return to the setting of business rates by local authorities. I say to all businesses in Scotland, God forbid the day that that should ever happen, because if it does, rates will soar, businesses in Scotland—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

National Health Service (East London)

2 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am not pleased at having to raise this topic—it should not be necessary to do so. The health services in east London are in a parlous state. None the less, on 5 April, when the Secretary of State was dragged to the House, she said:
I am determined that, as a result of these changes, we shall have a health service in London that is fit for the 21st century, in which we can all take great pride." —[Official Report, 5 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1736.]
I invited the right hon. Lady to today's debate. The Minister, who is present and who met a deputation on the matter a week before the Secretary of State's comment, is not responsible. The Secretary of State is responsible.
A week before the Secretary of State's comment, five Members of Parliament from east London with eight women officers of the community health councils told the Secretary of State personally that it would be disaster if the changes which she had authorised were to go ahead in the area of the East London and the City health authority. That area has a population of 500,000—the size of a large city. It is organised by one authority, whose officers and members are agents appointed by the Secretary of State. Indeed, this debate may be the first-ever opportunity for the right hon. Lady, who once again has not come to the House to take responsibility, to look at what is happening in a particular area. It is only when one sees what is happening in one area that one can see the impact of the changes introduced by the present Administration.
In east London, the City of London, one of the highest-earning areas, is next to three boroughs—Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham—which, on statistical terms at least, are three of the most deprived in the country. It is interesting to note that today a report has been published about the connection between income deprivation and health. Indeed, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) gave an example of that connection which was reported in the media. There is therefore a juxtaposition of some of the most privileged people, and some of the least privileged people, whom my hon. Friends and I represent; those immediately to the east of Aldgate pump and those stretching out in a segment to north-east London.
The main plans were to close hospitals. The 1,035 beds in the East London and the City health authority are to be reduced over six years to 738—a reduction of roughly 30 per cent. That takes account of the net closure resulting from St. Bartholomew's, the closure of the London Chest hospital—we all know how respiratory diseases are on the increase, especially among children—and the proposed closure of St. Andrew's by Newham Healthcare trust. So two saints in the east are going west and that is not good news for east London at all. The reason for the closures is the belief of the Secretary of State and her officers that the need for beds will go down, despite all the trolleys serving as beds in hospitals in east London, to which I shall refer in the moment.
The key to the operation is the Whitechapel site in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Indeed, 165 additional beds are to be provided there, together with

supporting services. The figures that I gave take that into account. When will that facility be built and where is the money coming from? I understand that, at current prices, £230 million has been allocated for that development, but Ministers have not given a guarantee of when, that will be available or if it will be available. Letters of comfort to the non-existent North Thames regional health authority chairman, who has now been phased out, do not provide the sort of guarantee that we want. We have heard such stories about replacement beds before and so have people all over the country. We want guarantees that the money will be available and that that facility will be built before the reciprocal numbers of beds elsewhere are reduced. Is that not a reasonable request, given that the commitment to provide them has been given?
The second area of questioning concerns secure psychiatric accommodation. A case arose in an east London magistrates court because at one time there were no proper secure beds available in east London. The Secretary of State could have attended but instead she sent somebody else. The recommended number of secure beds—of course it is more than a bed; it may be somewhere where people may be able to help their condition—is below that recommended by the royal colleges. I understand that secure places have not been found in north-east London for 63 people, and that the 63 places that have been found are scattered over the country as far away as Yorkshire and south Wales. Are those the sort of conditions in which relatives and others may help?
Two horror stories have been supplied by the Hackney and Newham community health council representatives retrospectively and I shall read them out because such stories convey the truth of what is happening much better than statistics, however much they impress those who can read them.
The first case study is of a Hackney man, whose mental state was deteriorating rapidly. He threatened a health worker with a knife, tried to pull out his own tongue, locked a GP in his room and attacked and tried to strangle an elderly woman in the street, yet there was no bed for him in Hackney. Only after the intervention of somebody from the office of the Secretary of State for Health was a bed found. Presumably, somebody was turfed out to make room for him. Such turfing out produces the curious anomaly of 120 per cent. bed occupancy, which I understand is the figure for Newham.
Case study two is of a 15-year-old Newham girl who could not be contained in local authority accommodation. She was eventually put through the courts and sent to gaol because there was no psychiatrist available to see her. Newham currently has one psychiatrist in post to cover the whole adult population of the borough—about 250,000 people.
One of the reasons why people do not fill vacancies in the borough is the extremely hard work load and the unreasonable demands made on loyal, skilled and hard-working staff. Indeed, the health of some of them suffers as a result.
The casualty scene is perhaps the most spectacular. Bart's had a casualty department. Its closure has meant greater pressure on adjacent casualty units—those at the London Chest hospital and the Homerton. I am told that, since January, the Homerton casualty unit has had to be temporarily closed on 20 occasions. Although it may have been for only half an hour or half a day, that means that ambulances have to go further and everybody's morale


goes down. To keep the unit's head above water, beds have had to be put in the waiting room. It is not the only casualty unit affected by the closure of Bart's casualty. The closure has had a ripple effect throughout east London, including Newham general, where at the moment patients have to wait anything between four and eight hours in the casualty unit. Eleven posts for junior hospital casualty officers were advertised not long ago, but only seven could be filled, adding to the pressure on those who responded to the call.
I understand that, quite properly, the Government have reduced the pressure on junior doctors. I have also heard that, for some reason, the Royal College of Surgeons—for all I know, the Royal College of Physicians may have done the same—has reduced or eliminated the requirement for young doctors to have such experience. The supply has dwindled. Who would blame young doctors for not choosing to go into a situation in which the stress is greatest and the staff shortages are the worst, if they do not have to? There is a descending vicious spiral.
The Secretary of State—or rather the Minister, as he is here, although it should be the Secretary of State—may know about that problem and want to make inquiries. I hope that he will be able to tell me now whether what I have said is true, because if he cannot it shows that either he or his Department is not up to the job.
There was recently a scare story—or rather, not a scare story but a factual story—in The Sun about a theatre orderly being involved in an operation. That may have been medically justifiable—I do not say that it was not—but we know that the orderly had to stand in for a doctor who was called away to fill a gap in the Newham general hospital casualty department. Perhaps he was trying to save somebody who was dying. Who is to know?
A couple of weeks ago a chap came to my advice service and said, "I was driving my van down the street, Mr. Spearing, when I had pins and needles and I went numb all down one side. I drove slowly and quietly to Newham general and said, 'I think I have had a stroke.'" Two nurses, no doubt under pressure, assured him that he had not had a stroke, and told him to see his general practitioner. The next morning, having driven quietly home, the man went to see his GP, who confirmed that he had had a stroke. I have verified those facts with the community health council.
Those stories show what problems there are in the casualty departments, which are the most critical facilities of all. And those problems stem to some extent from the ripple effect of the Bart's closure. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, asked what use was to be made of the St. Bartholomew's site, and the last sentence of the written answer by the Minister for Health read:
The Royal Hospitals trust has also been in discussion with the city initiative on possible uses of the site for health-related services."—[Official Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 119.]
I know that the City is worried about the reduction in local emergency facilities. It does not like the disappearance of St. Bartholomew's casualty department. If I were a City financier or somebody with plenty of money and a bit of organisation, I would say, "Can't we use some of that site for a private organisation?" City firms—there are enough of them—could get together and

say, "What about some form of accident and emergency facility there?" That is possible; there is talk of it happening. Somebody from abroad might think of such a project as a good thing. It might be a paying game, and make a profit. Someone will say, "What about a market in accidents and emergencies in the City, eh, boys? Shares?"
That is the sort of development that the Government are encouraging in health. They think that there is a market in health care. Well, we do not. That is the big difference between us. It is typified, as in a sort of parable, in the contrast between the City, Aldgate and the rest of east London. I do not say that what I suggest will happen, but I suggest to the Minister that it might.
Let us suppose that a taxi driver—John Bull, one of my constituents—had a heart attack at the Bank of England. Would he be eligible for treatment at such a place? We do not know. We can think of other representative people, too. Lots of people live in that great Barbican block. Let us think of a typical name in London—John Smith, perhaps. Would a John Smith in an organisation which had no share in that accident and emergency facility, and did not pay money to it, be eligible? No.
I do not say that that will happen, but I suggest that, under the Minister's philosophy, it could happen—unless he tells us to the contrary, so that people, not only at home but abroad, can hear him. I hope that it will not happen, but there is only one way to stop it—to reopen the much-needed Bart's casualty facility for everybody, as it was designed for the national health service and as it operated until recently.
In the East London and the City health authority, we see an example of what is happening all over the country. We often hear about social and other types of problem in other parts of the country; we read about them in black and white and we see them fuzzily. But in east London, where there are all sorts of problems, we see them not fuzzily but in focus, and not in black and white but in sharp technicolour.
In east London we have seen the closures that the Secretary of State, whose hands are not safe, announced a few weeks ago. My hon. Friends and I, who represent constituents who live in east London in the deprived boroughs, have to bring those facts out, and say that the health service there is not good enough. The Government ought not to be proud of it now, and I fear that, despite what the Secretary of State said, we shall not be able to be proud of it in the next century, either.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on having secured the debate. I shall add a few brief remarks of my own, because I want to comment on the level of resources available for health services in east London. Before I do so, I shall express one note of commendation for a recent Government decision, because this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so.
I welcome the decision to have three community health service trusts, rather than the one initially proposed, in east London. My hon. Friend and others, including myself, reflecting representations made in east London, have expressed that view to the Minister in earlier debates, and I am pleased that it has been decided to go for three


trusts rather than one. That will give us a better basis for the future of community health services in east London than we should otherwise have had.
However, that decision has already shown what an extraordinary disparity there is between the budgets of the three new community health service trusts. That has again thrown into relief the question of the resources made available for the health services in east London to deal with the problems that my hon. Friend has so eloquently described.
We need a funding regime to reflect the immense need created by the deprivation that we endure in east London. We have not yet got that. Of all the myriad examples that could be cited, I shall mention the formula for the funding of the psychiatric services, which contains no reference whatever to the level of unemployment in an area.
It has been well known for many years that high unemployment contributes to psychiatric problems, yet that knowledge is not reflected in the funding formula. This morning's King's Fund report, which my hon. Friend mentioned, shows that resources must reflect far more fully than they do the deprivation that leads to and accompanies poor health. If we can make sure that that happens, east London will have a much better slice of the resources than it does, and we shall be able to look forward to resolving some of the problems that my hon. Friend has described.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for allowing me a brief intervention. I represent a constituency slightly to the east of my hon. Friend's constituency, in which, despite massive local opposition, the Government have given the go-ahead for the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Oldchurch hospital. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have long expressed our real fear that that decision marks the first nail in the coffin of Oldchurch hospital as a whole.
The people whom I represent desperately need the services provided by that hospital. They have already lost too much—Barking, Rush Green and now Oldchurch. Now they are to be expected to go to Newham general hospital—we have heard about the problems there. My constituents will be left with one hospital serving almost half a million people.
The people of Barking are more likely than average to be old, to be sick and not to have the use of a car. Yet they are now expected to travel on lousy public transport all the way to Harold Wood hospital or Newham general hospital for accident and emergency services. It will be a catastrophe.
I seek two assurances from the Minister today. Is the impact of the closure of the Oldchurch unit being monitored by his Department? If so, will he report back to the House? Is the future of Oldchurch hospital as a whole secure?

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on securing this debate on an extremely important, and controversial, matter. I am pleased to come to the Dispatch Box today to explain the Government's policies and the reason behind them. Rather than

concentrate on the general strategy, I should like in the moments that remain to me to get into the meat of the arguments that have been raised by the hon. Members for Newham, South, for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Barking (Ms Hodge). I shall deal with as many of the points as I can.
I shall deal first with the points about beds. A range of research published over a period suggested that general bed reductions were required in London. The debate gets off on the wrong foot if anyone suggests that there are prescriptive figures tied to a definite timetable from which no one will depart. I remind the House that health authorities are given by the Government a fundamental statutory responsibility to provide adequate services, whether that means acute beds, what are described in the language of academics as low-tech beds or long-term beds. The health authorities have to get the balance right.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South will concede that the reductions are not being done according to a strict timetable with a ratio of beds dropping according to some formula that was fixed some time ago, on which the Government are being inflexible. Nothing is further from the truth.
The figures that underpinned Tomlinson were essentially predictions of trends in bed use. Therefore, actual bed reductions are broadly in line with the predicted trend. That is what we have seen. The Government's policy in London, as in the rest of the country, is that it is for individual health authorities to plan what level of provision is appropriate in their area, taking into account all the factors of need, demand and availability, and the desirability and adequacy of other services.
An impression has emerged that the report that underpinned the reforms that are now taking place is out of date. The report is being questioned. It is important to remind everyone who is interested in the matter that the King's Fund still holds to the view that, as a result of changing medical practice and the reduction in referrals to London hospitals from outside the capital, London will need fewer acute hospital beds in the future in general terms. Most people would concede that point.
I understand that those who represent London constituencies wish to make their points in their own way, but the principle is that the number of beds must be adequate. There is an overview. Restructuring will mean that, in time, a different pattern will emerge in London. That is something with which the House is familiar. It is broadly accepted outside London, especially in areas which previously referred to London hospitals to a great extent, but now find that they do not do so as much. The pattern has changed and the demand from the local area is that the hospitals that serve local people should take much more of the case load than in the past.
On a point referred to in passing by the hon. Member for Newham, South, there is one saint in the east which is not going west. St. Andrew's hospital will not close. In-patient services will be transferred to Newham, with concentration of day care and out-patient services at St. Andrew's. That proposal is subject to public consultation, as are all the changes proposed.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we were to guarantee that changes would take place smoothly and services would be preserved. It was a fair point. As he knows, it is impossible for any Minister to give specific guarantees from the Dispatch Box of funding other than on a


year-to-year basis from committed funds. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider, first, the level of capital investment that has already been committed in London and secondly, the capital and running investment provided through the London initiative zone for primary care. I suggest that if he is looking for an earnest of the Government's intentions, the flourishing of primary care schemes, not least in his constituency, is the clearest possible evidence.

Ms Mildred Gordon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Malone: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will not give way. I agreed to allow three hon. Members to speak in the debate, and I have only a short time to make my speech. I must answer the points that have been made. I apologise to her. Perhaps, on some other occasion, I could respond to her points. I understand that we may be offered an occasion at some point in the future.
The hon. Member for Newham, South should bear in mind the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my predecessor gave to the House about casualty departments, to which he specifically referred. My remarks on this subject are also directed at the hon. Member for Barking. No facility shall close unless there is an equivalent, if not better, facility in place. The hon. Gentleman talked at some length in a rather dramatic way about unlikely scenarios for the future of the site at Bart's. I ask him to bear in mind the views of a great body of professional opinion. It is not me or even great academics who are telling him this. If the hon. Gentleman talks to a casualty surgeon—a specialist consultant in a new field—he will be told that there needs to be a critical mass and there needs to be reorganisation. I understand that reorganisation is painful, but on the Bart's site there is now an excellent minor injuries unit to deal with the everyday needs of the local population. Those developments across London are highly welcome.
The hon. Member for Newham, South also referred to mental health. Mental health services are a high priority in east London. There is a pressing need for better services. The health authority has set up an action research project to consider how best to meet those needs. There are 109 mental health beds in Hackney, including 15 psychiatric intensive care and 15 low secure beds. There are 91 beds in Newham and 101 in Tower Hamlets. That is a total of 301 beds.
The demand for psychiatric beds greatly fluctuates. As the hon. Member for Newham, South rightly said, there are pressures. On occasions, in order to meet demand, placements have been made outside the district. That is why the district health authority is working to provide a further 15 intensive care beds in Newham to meet need in that part of the district.
On the point about pressures and over-occupation, much of what appears in the statistics of over-occupation is cases in which people are released into the community, in the care of their family, for a fixed period. That person's bed then becomes available and is used in the interim. No one would suggest that the corollary which the hon. Gentleman implies is that the bed should lie vacant in the meantime. Proper use is important.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East raised the general question of resources. With the new formula, which concentrates more on capitation than before, resources are moving exactly in the direction in which the hon. Gentleman suggests he wants to go. Deprivation and problems in east London have been recognised in other ways as well—in primary care, not least through the London initiative zone and through the fact that deprivation payments are now well established. Those are important ways to get into what I would describe as the "front line" of care. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this year's increase of 4 per cent., or £322 million, which the East London and the City health authority will receive, is welcome.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked a specific question about the future of the Bart's site. The Government welcome the trust's intention to explore the possibilities of a continuation of medical care on the most historic part of the Smithfield site. The contribution that will be made by the project team, led by Sir Ronald Grierson, will be welcomed. The team will look at the practical options involved, which are likely to be at the less spectacular end of the spectrum that he painted to the House today.
The policy that the Government have put in place will bring better health care to Londoners in the future. It will bring to London's health care a 21st century standard, which is now met in many other parts of the country. That is broadly welcomed by those close to providing the service. Ultimately, to shirk from making change where it is necessary is an abrogation of responsibility, not just by the Government but, if she failed to take the challenge, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Miscarriages of Justice

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [19569]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland may be reviewed by the High Court of Justiciary either on appeal or when a case is referred by me under section 263(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. Any convicted person may petition me seeking review of his or her case and I may refer a case to the High Court with or without a petition. It is also open to me in exceptional circumstances to make a recommendation to Her Majesty concerning the royal prerogative of mercy.

Mr. Mullin: Is it not extraordinary that the Scottish legal establishment should seek to exempt itself from the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Bill, which will apply to every other part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland? Unless I am mistaken, there is a certain complacency about the Scottish legal system's approach to alleged miscarriages of justice. From the many letters that I receive from prisoners in Scottish gaols alleging that they are innocent, I know that there is no cause for such complacency. Should not something similar to the review tribunal proposed in the Criminal Appeal Bill be set up shortly for Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency. Although circumstances in Scotland differ from those south of the border, we have set up a distinguished independent committee under Professor Sir Stuart Sutherland to review the complex issues of handling alleged miscarriages of justice. The committee is expected to report next year and we shall take action on its findings.
I should also point out that the Labour party consultation document, "Protection and Justice", agreed that the procedures for handling alleged miscarriages of justice should not be changed until the effect of possible changes to the criteria applied by the Appeal Court had been considered.

Mr. Hood: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern within the legal profession in Scotland about the disparity between what happens in English courts and in Scottish courts? I remind the Secretary of State that if George Beattie's appeal had been heard in an English court it would have been upheld and he would have been given the justice that he deserves. The Scottish legal system failed George Beattie as it has failed many Scottish people in similar situations over the years. It is time that it was changed and I hope that the Secretary of State will have the courage to come to the Dispatch Box and make that change.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman makes some rather contentious remarks. The Scottish system suits Scottish circumstances. If we tried to emulate the English system and remodel our arrangements on that, I suspect that there would be a great deal of opposition from both sides of the

House. On George Beattie's case, the hon. Gentleman has already said that a further petition on his behalf is to be submitted. I am ready to consider any such petition when it arrives.

Local Government

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the future of local government as a result of the local government elections on 6 April. [19570]

Mr. Lang: The structure of local government put in place under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 provides a framework within which services can be better tailored to local needs and more effectively delivered. I look to the new authorities to make the most of the opportunities afforded by the new structure.

Mr. Canavan: Now that the Tories have suffered a complete wipe-out in the Scottish local elections, does the Secretary of State agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that the Scottish Tories face the prospect of yet another wipe-out in the next general election in Scotland, and deservedly so? Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's policies have been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Scotland and that any sell-out of Scottish Nuclear may turn out to be the last straw?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman considerably oversimplifies my hon. Friend's remarks and therefore draws entirely wrong conclusions from them. As for the prospects of the Conservative party in the next general election, I refer the hon. Gentleman to similar remarks that he made shortly before the last general election.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real danger facing local government in Scotland comes from plans to create a directly elected Scottish Assembly which, in order to play a worthwhile role in the life of Scotland, would certainly take power from this House and would also take powers and responsibilities from every one of the new unitary local authorities throughout Scotland, thereby denying local communities the right to become involved in local decision making? Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone who believes in strong, accountable, genuinely local government should join us in opposing the Labour party's plans?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our plan for the single-tier structure now being brought into being is to create a strong, robust system of local democracy, with single-tier, all-purpose authorities throughout the country and having power decentralised in that way. I believe that that is very much to the good of local government. The Labour party's plans to create a Scottish Parliament would clearly draw powers from the outlying parts of Scotland to that Parliament—a centralising process which would be intensely damaging to local government.

Mr. Welsh: Given the complete rejection of the Conservative party and its policies by the Scottish people, does the Minister consider that he had a mandate for appointing the chief executives and chairmen of the unwanted and unnecessary water quangos?

Mr. Lang: It is not a matter of a mandate; it is a matter of parliamentary authority and requirement so to do.
On the results of the local elections, I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman's party has anything to crow about. We are all starting to wonder what happened to the great Scottish National party breakthrough.

Mr. McLoughlin: When the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was passing through the House, my right hon. Friend was accused of gerrymandering the boundaries. Is he aware that many of us in England are envious of his bold decision to create unitary status local authorities and that we would very much like to have seen them repeated in England? Does that not show that there was no gerrymandering? My right hon. Friend acted in the way he thought best for local government in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his conclusion, and I am grateful to him. Nevertheless, I would not urge my English colleagues to emulate Scotland in every respect.

Mr. Watson: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the responsibilities of local government in Scotland is that of running the district court system. In 1994, 7,000 cases referred by the procurator fiscal's office to the Glasgow district court had to be discontinued as a result of lack of court space and court time. Will the Secretary of State comment on what must be the ultimate miscarriage of justice—when there is no justice because there is no hearing whatsoever? Will he comment on the resources available to Glasgow district court? Will he also liaise with his colleague, the Lord Advocate, to whom I have written about that matter, to ensure that there are adequate resources so that all cases passed by the procurator fiscal's office come to Glasgow district court?

Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman must be rather frustrated. His supplementary really relates to the first question. He has rather taken advantage of another question, on local government. If the Secretary of State is willing to answer, of course, then he may do so.

Mr. Lang: I am happy to answer, although I think—indeed, I am sure—that you are right, as always, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must be looking for favours from me.

Mr. Lang: Bread upon the waters, Madam Speaker.
There is, of course, a measure of protection in relation to the bringing of cases to court in Scotland under Scots law. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with full details of his specific worries, I will pursue the matter further.

Sir David Steel: As Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is now a Tory-free zone, does the Secretary of State accept that the Prime Minister is quite wrong in ascribing the defeat on 6 April to divisions in the Conservative party, and that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was right—and he should know—when he talked about the disastrous Government policies in Scotland? Will the Secretary of State therefore change the Government's policies in Scotland, stop resisting home rule, stop rail privatisation and stop de-trunking roads?

Mr. Lang: In terms of control of local authorities, Scotland is also a Liberal-free zone. The Liberals received the lowest proportion of the vote of all parties participating in the local elections, so I do not think that

the right hon. Gentleman has a great deal to crow about. I am confident that the Government are pursuing the right policies. They are delivering excellent results in all the main theatres of Government activity, and that will prove increasingly to be the case.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the local election results were not good for our party, we have been down that road before and come back? The Conservative party is the oldest party in the United Kingdom, and one of the reasons why we are the oldest surviving functioning party in government at a national level is that we take note of experiences which are not pleasant and act upon them.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that we shall act upon the results of the local elections on 6 April and our consideration of them. I am equally confident that at the next general election the Conservative party will be seen to advance further from the position to which it advanced at the last election.

Mr. George Robertson: May I ask the Secretary of State whether, in all modesty, he still believes that the humiliation that he and his party suffered at the hands of the electorate on 6 April had absolutely nothing to do with policy? Does he really believe that the drubbing that the Government received in the elections—which, after all, were created and carved out in the interests of the Scottish Conservative party—had anything to do with what Sir Michael Hirst described as "ingratitude" on the part of the Scottish people?
Will the Secretary of State and his party recognise that the Conservative party received a miserable 11 per cent. of the vote in ballot boxes all over Scotland as a serious punishment for the policies that the Government have been practising? Will he bear in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who shared the Treasury Bench with him just a few months ago? The hon. Gentleman said:
The Government cannot afford to take measures that don't reflect public support.
Will the Secretary of State abandon once and for all the Government's hostility to creating a Scottish Parliament? The Scottish people have spoken: surely the Government must now listen.

Mr. Lang: I would not disguise for one moment the fact that the results were extremely disappointing for my party in Scotland. We have already made that clear. We are considering the implications of the results. As I have said, we shall learn from them, recover and advance.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the creation of a Scottish Parliament is not the cure for Scotland's ills. The creation of a Scottish Parliament, with tax-raising powers and the ability to draw power from local government all over Scotland, would be extremely damaging to Scotland's future within the United Kingdom as well as being economically, socially and constitutionally damaging. We shall resist any such moves.

Green Belt

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of Scotland are currently designated as green belt; what the figures were in 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement. [19571]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The currently designated area of green belt in Scotland is 384,000 acres. The figure for 1974 was 320,000 acres and for 1979 it was 540,000 acres.
Our policies continue to provide resolute protection of Scotland's green belts, which are firmly established in planning authorities and in local plans throughout most of Scotland.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to maintaining Scotland's natural environment, but will he explain those rather puzzling figures and renew the Government's commitment to securing more green belt areas? That contrasts with the Labour party's behaviour in my constituency, where it seeks to build on every blade of grass it can get hold of, including school playing fields. I hope that the Labour party will not do that in Scotland and I hope that it will not be allowed to continue to do so in my constituency.

Sir Hector Monro: The figures are easily explained: the big reduction in acreage comes largely from the reduction in the Dundee green belt, which no longer exists, and a loss of green belt area at Aberdeen—some 146,000 acres in Aberdeen and 36,000 acres in Dundee. Both local authorities concerned continue a robust countryside policy and are very active in seeing that the countryside is developed properly. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State and I and our other colleagues involved in local government administration are very keen to see the green belt policy continue and we will ensure that it is carried out properly.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister may be aware that some years ago the Secretary of State gave permission for building what amounts to a very small town on 500 acres of grade A agricultural land at Robroyston in my constituency. If the Minister is allowing the development of green belt sites such as Robroyston, will he not only allow houses to be built, but ensure that developers provide facilities such as schools and community services? Houses have been built, but absolutely no services have been provided.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is essential that when the local authority involved gives planning authority it should make sure that facilities are available. I should not comment on each individual case as the Secretary of State has the final say in such matters, but I will make certain that the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is given careful consideration and that I or my colleague will write to him.

Mr. Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of brown-field sites is essential to restrain pressure on the green belt sites? Will he say a word about the Government's policies in relation to that?

Sir Hector Monro: I commend the exceptionally good work of my hon. Friend while he was the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland, particularly towards urban regeneration in relation to alternative sites and recycled brown-field sites. The Government's plan provides £9 million from Scottish Enterprise over three years for the development of derelict land. Scottish Homes also plays an important part in developing some derelict sites. That shows that the Government are very

concerned about brown-field sites and we are moving in the right direction with the co-operation of the local authorities concerned.

Health Boards

Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the health boards to discuss finance. [19572]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State meets chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss a wide range of strategic issues affecting the national health service in Scotland. Many of those issues may have financial implications. The next meeting will take place on 23 June 1995.

Mr. Donohoe: When the Minister meets the chairman of Ayrshire and Arran health board, which has become a trailblazer towards privatisation, will he suggest that its latest proposal to contract out ante-natal clinics at a rumoured £60 per patient will allow the high level of infant mortality in Ayrshire to continue? In those circumstances, the Government stand accused of causing deaths and infant mortality.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: One of the important principles in contracting out services or main contracts by health boards is that the quality of service and standards must be properly maintained. In addition, appropriate costings and accessibility are key factors to influence such decisions. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we want to maintain the highest standards and we shall be very concerned if there is any dropping away from them. Health spending in Scotland this year will be more than £4.3 billion, which is 53 per cent. higher than 1979.

Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend tell the House how spending per capita on the NHS in Scotland compares with spending per capita in England? Would he expect that difference to be maintained by an independent Scotland or by a Scottish Assembly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is a considerable difference between Scotland and England. Spending per capita in Scotland is almost £150 more than in England. This year it will be £798 per head in Scotland, but only £649 in England. If a Scottish Parliament were established with tax-raising powers, I believe that the extra cost of that would have an impact on other key services in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: In response to what the Minister said about wide-ranging issues with financial implications, the Argyll and Clyde health board is in one hell of a mess over its hospital closure and reprovision programme. The families of patients in the Merchiston, Bridge of Weir and Ravenscraig hospitals are deeply concerned about dilatoriness on the part of the health board. I would not trust that outfit with the management of an ice cream cart or running a menage.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Before any hospital closure can occur, there must be full consultation. Proposals must go to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister of State, and they would be considered in the greatest detail. The hon. Gentleman's representations and those of his constituents would be carefully borne in mind.

Mrs. Ray Michie: When the Minister meets health board chairmen, will he tell them how he proposes to tackle the significant shortage of doctors in specialties such as anaesthetics, orthodontics and particularly urology? Is the Minister aware of the critical situation in the many trust hospitals which are unable to fill vacant posts? Whether that is due to mismatching or mismanagement, there is no doubt that the shortage of specialists is contributing to longer waiting lists.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady touches on the important point that medical demands and technology are changing. In accordance with consumer demand, we must make certain of the necessary number of general practitioners, which has increased 19 per cent. since 1979. The number of consultants has risen 20 per cent. and the number of nurses by 18 per cent. since 1979. Waiting times have fallen and more people are receiving treatment. There has also been increased investment in improving hospitals. The hon. Lady is right to say that we must consider the problems of the future. Many of the old diseases such as typhoid are with us no longer to the same degree as in the past, and we must adapt to changing circumstances.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the electricity supply industry in Scotland concerning greater utilisation of coal-fired generating plants. [19573]

Mr. Lang: I meet representatives of the two Scottish electricity supply companies from time to time to discuss a range of issues. Any plans for greater use of coal-fired generating plant are for the companies themselves, provided that they can continue to operate within environmental constraints.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the planned uprating of the east coast overhead lines from 250,000 volts to 440,000 volts is good news for English customers cost-wise and for Scottish jobs in the electricity supply and coal industry, and good news environmentally in view of the low sulphur content of Scottish coal and the transportation factor of coal by wire?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The quality of Scottish coal is high in terms of the low sulphur content. Consumption increased by 400,000 tonnes last year. If plans for upgrading the interconnector from 1,600 MW to 2,200 MW come to fruition, that will be good news for the Scottish electricity generating industry and for English consumers.

Mr. Ingram: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the proposal to subsume Scottish Nuclear into Nuclear Electric has united all political opinion in Scotland—including the Scottish National party, which until now wanted to close down the industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman support the merger proposal? If so, is that not a further example of his selling Scotland short for short-term tax cuts?

Mr. Lang: That is pretty rich coming from a member of the Labour party, whose 1992 manifesto stated:
Britain's dependence on nuclear power will therefore steadily diminish.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the SNP manifesto promised a non-nuclear Scotland, but Labour also promised to run down the nuclear energy industry. I am concerned to secure the best long-term future in Scotland for the Scottish nuclear generating industry. The scaremongering, alarm and speculation stirred up by Labour is entirely misleading—above all, to those people whose employment depends on the nuclear industry in Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question? Is he personally in favour, as press reports suggest, of a merger of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric before privatisation? If so, is he aware that no one outside the Scottish Office shares that opinion? Opposition to it ranges from nuclear enthusiasts such as James Hann and Donald Miller to nuclear sceptics such as myself and Friends of the Earth—[Interruption.] To unite Donald Miller and Friends of the Earth is a substantial achievement. What has changed since the late 1980s, when it was decided to leave Scottish Nuclear under Scottish control and under public control? Is it really that the Government just need the money for tax cuts, at any expense to Scottish jobs or to nuclear safety?

Mr. Lang: The Government are concerned to achieve the long-term future of the nuclear generating industry. That is something which the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish National party are pledged to destroy and which the Labour party would also destroy. We are working towards a solution which will maintain high employment, quality jobs and a successful nuclear generating industry in Scotland, and in due course such a solution will be announced.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have a constituency interest both in coal burning, at Cockenzie, and in Scottish Nuclear, at Torness. Will he now tackle the immediate issues surrounding the future of Scottish Nuclear? First, will he accept the case for keeping this uniquely sensitive industry in the public sector? Secondly, will he honour the undertaking given by his predecessor to Sir Donald Miller that Scottish Nuclear will remain as a distinct Scottish entity? We want no sops, no bogus autonomy—just a distinct Scottish entity.

Mr. Lang: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance: it will indeed, as required by the nuclear energy agreement. Maintaining the industry in the public sector is, however, precisely what would create a twilight zone for the nuclear generating industry in Scotland—and its ultimate demise. We are looking for the long-term survival, growth, expansion and prosperity of the industry in Scotland and elsewhere around the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the whole idea of privatising a merged nuclear power industry makes absolutely no sense? On grounds of safety and security and of efficiency and profitability, Scottish Nuclear should stay firmly and permanently in the public sector. Is not this nuclear madness just another panic-stricken, money-grabbing tactic by the Treasury? The Secretary of State for Scotland has yet again been outvoted, outargued and outgunned in Cabinet. Will he stand up in Cabinet tomorrow for common sense and for Scotland, or will there be a white flag flying over St. Andrew's house as well as over No. 10 Downing street?

Mr. Lang: There may be a red face on the Opposition Front Bench as I do not expect the matter to be decided in Cabinet tomorrow. I repeat that we are concerned to secure the long-term future of the industry. I do not believe that Labour party policy could ever deliver that.
I am appalled by the hon. Gentleman's scaremongering in referring to jobs being lost in Scotland. He talked of 1,000 jobs being lost at East Kilbride as a result of Government proposals. That is rubbish. Apart from anything else, there are only 400 jobs at East Kilbride, so it would be difficult to lose more than twice that number. In fact, I expect the number of jobs in Scotland to increase if we can secure the right package for the future of the industry.

Health Boards

Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with health boards about the future of the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [19575]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State meets the chairmen of health boards regularly. They discuss a wide range of matters concerning the national health service in Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: When did the Scottish Office become aware of the cancer treatment initiative launched by the Secretary of State for Health and why has the Scottish Office yet to produce its own initiative? Is the Minister not aware—as I am, from constituency experience—of the vast disparities in the treatment of breast cancer and non-breast cancers alike? As a matter of urgency, will the Minister bring out his plans for a new health initiative on cancer treatment and state how much additional money will be devoted to ensuring that patients suffering from this dangerous disease get the best possible service?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as the alarming information about breast cancer scanning in Dundee became known investigations were immediately carried out. It was found that well under 1 per cent. were affected and the matter was put right with all possible speed. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's points about funding and initiatives in this area. I shall also bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. McAvoy: When Ministers meet representatives of the Greater Glasgow health board, will they take into account the great concern felt by people in its area about Tory Government cuts which affect the health service delivered to people there? Not least, will he discuss the fact that the finance-driven cuts imposed by the Government on the Greater Glasgow health board mean that the health board is proposing the closure of the safest and most modern maternity hospital in its area, at Rutherglen? When will the Government realise that, as the recent local elections showed, the people of Scotland and of the Greater Glasgow health board area demand that the Government properly fund the national health service?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Glasgow has substantial funding, and we have to bear it in mind that the capitation grant gives a higher percentage share per head of population to those living in Glasgow because of the particular needs of people in the area.
As for the hon. Gentleman's interest in the future of Rutherglen maternity hospital, I am aware that the consultation has been extended as a result of the persuasive representations that he made on behalf of his constituents. We must await the outcome of Greater Glasgow health board's consideration of the consultation exercise which has been extended to 31 May. If any closures are proposed, the matter will be put before the Secretary of State, who will have to be certain that any new proposals will be every bit as good as, if not better than, the current position. The hon. Gentleman's representations will be carefully considered.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister include on the agenda of his discussions with health boards about the future of the NHS the arrangements to be made for the negotiation of pay at a local level for nurses? Will he confirm that the Scottish Office has made available only enough money to allow a total increase at a maximum of 2.5 per cent. as opposed to the 3 per cent. available to nurses in the rest of the United Kingdom? Is that not shortchanging Scottish nurses? Does the Minister not believe that it is completely ludicrous for trusts such as the two established in the Borders region 26 days ago to undertake the complicated and difficult business of trying to negotiate local settlements for nurses? It is a disgrace, and he should use his influence at a national level to keep nationally negotiated rates of pay for nurses.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is certainly not my information. My information is that the review body said that it expects local pay on top of the national 1 per cent. to lead to increases of between 1.5 and 3 per cent. for most nurses. I strongly recommend that those involved carry out negotiations at the local level. The point of local pay is to make services more responsive to local needs. We believe that the nearer to patients decisions are taken, the better they are likely to be. I must also mention that the Scottish Office intends to issue guidance shortly on this matter.

Mr. McAllion: When the sick are shuttled across the country in search of beds because too many local beds have been closed, when the private Health Care International hospital is given NHS money to take on extra staff while an NHS hospital such as the Glasgow royal infirmary is given less money and cannot afford to fill staff vacancies, and when junior doctors are worked and exploited to the point of exhaustion, to the extent that some become sick and even contemplate suicide, is it not time, for the sake of the future of the NHS, that the Government abandoned their pernicious market reforms, returned the NHS to its original purpose, which was to meet medical needs, and did not pander to private greed?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the performance of the health service in Scotland, the number of people on waiting lists fell by 4 per cent. in 1994; fewer people are experiencing lengthy waits; and more people than ever are being treated. We are absolutely determined to ensure that our national health service is second to none and we shall work flat out to ensure that.
With regard to the private sector and the new hospital buildings required, the efficiency of the private sector may help public sector funds to go very much further in the best interests of patients. Of course, health service funding has increased enormously over the years.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

University Funding

Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to discuss university funding. [19576]

Mr. Lang: I met the chairman of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council in November 1994 to discuss a range of subjects, including the funding of higher education.

Mrs. Liddell: Will the Secretary of State seek an early meeting with the chairman of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and place on the agenda a revision of the importance of higher education to Scotland's economic and social well-being? Will he also consider at that meeting the devastating effect on Scottish higher education of the 35 per cent. reduction over five years in the unit of resource available for each student currently in higher education? Failure to do so would show that the Secretary of State was weak, out of touch and determined to sell out Scotland's economic and social future.

Mr. Lang: I am afraid that the hon. Lady seems to have got her facts wrong, because not only do we recognise the importance of higher education but we have doubled the participation of the relevant age group in higher education since the Labour Government left power. We are making provision for a 2.5 per cent. expansion in student numbers next year.

Mrs. Liddell: What about student resources?

Mr. Lang: On resources—I hear the hon. Lady murmur from a sedentary position—let me point out that, since 1989, there has been a 19 per cent. increase in real terms in grant and loans.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a steady increase in the number in higher education in Scotland, against a steady flow of forecasts from Opposition Members that the figures would go in the opposite direction? Is it not an indication of the Government's commitment to higher education in Scotland that, although Scotland has only 9 per cent. of the population, it provides 12 per cent. of the number in higher education in Great Britain?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. He is right to say that we have been committed to the expansion of higher education and have been successfully delivering it. That has been done with no loss of quality. Indeed, some 30 per cent. of departments appraised recently were categorised as excellent.

Mr. Galbraith: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council, will he discuss with him the possibility of developing a much simpler system for assessing research in universities? Does he not realise that, under the current system, more time is spent on talking about past research and what will happen in the future than is spent on research in the present? Is it not time that we had a simpler system that encouraged research rather than taking up the time of bureaucrats?

Mr. Lang: I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Research is extremely important and is something to which the Government have given considerable attention and resources.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss funding. [19577]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall meet the board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise later this year to discuss its latest operating plan and the funding that it requires.

Mr. Macdonald: The Minister will know that the fishing industry is very important to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area and that there is great concern about the prospect of Spanish access to the west coast and how it will affect the fishing industry. Is not it necessary to follow the example of the recent agreement between Canada and Spain and insist on an independent and firm system of monitoring and apportionment of that access to ensure that it does not lead to overfishing and the long-term destruction of the fishing industry on the west coast?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about monitoring. There is no doubt that fish stocks around the world are coming under increasing pressure, and it is vital that proper conservation measures are introduced. It is equally essential that enforcement and monitoring are imposed. Britain will support sensible measures in the European Union, the United Nations and elsewhere to achieve that.
I also support what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to Spain having restricted access to western waters. It has been kept out of the Irish sea and will have only restricted access to the rest of the Irish box. Its fishing levels in other western waters cannot increase. Spanish fishing will be limited by quotas. The Government will take on board the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern in the highlands about the distribution of funds under objective 1, and the fear that the objective—to ensure that the money will go to redress geographical imbalances in economic development, and particularly to deal with sparsely populated areas further from Inverness—is not reflected in the decisions that have been taken, and that the decision not to finance the north coast road in Scotland will put at zero efforts to regenerate the north highlands economy if that matter is not tackled quickly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, objective 1 funding will be of enormous assistance to the highlands, but it cannot satisfy every demand that has been made. Geographical targeting will apply to four programme priorities across a number of sub-areas in the highlands and islands and will be achieved by determining a minimum level of resources to be allocated to each sub-area over the six years of the programme. The minimum will be determined by applying a formula based on relevant indicators to 50 per cent. of the total resources available. That may not cover the road project that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it will go a long way to meet the general demands of each part of the highlands.

Rules and Regulations

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules and regulations he plans to repeal in the next four weeks. [19578]

Mr. Lang: I have it in mind to introduce a number of regulations covering a variety of matters. These will be presented to Parliament in the usual way. I cannot say which may be proposed on the time scale that my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Steen: In view of my right hon. Friend's well-known personal commitment to deregulation, has he evaluated the effect on bureaucracy of Labour's plans to devolve Scotland? Will it increase bureaucracy, as I believe it will? Will it develop into a new army of tartan bureaucrats who will go around making more rules and regulations and affecting the prosperity of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend sets me a large task to evaluate Labour's plans, since they change periodically and are extremely obscure, but one thing is certain: the creation of an extra tier of government through a tax-raising Scottish Parliament would increase the tax and the bureaucratic burdens on the people of Scotland and be immensely damaging to Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: What will the right hon. Gentleman do about the Crown Office rule that it does not answer straight questions on Lockerbie?

Mr. Lang: I do not think that I would seek to answer them under a question about the laying of rules and regulations.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the nuclear industry is properly surrounded by a great deal of regulation? Does he recognise that the nuclear industry enjoys a high measure of public confidence and support in my constituency because, for instance, of its 100 per cent. safety record, under public ownership? Will he further recognise that Scottish Nuclear is extremely profitable and that it has met the nation's energy needs, under public ownership? What conceivable right has the right hon. Gentleman to acquiesce in the destruction of all that to achieve the short-term Tory aim of tax cuts before a general election?

Mr. Lang: I certainly do not propose to acquiesce in the loss of the nuclear electricity industry in Scotland, which is what would happen if the Labour party came to power and implemented its policy. However, I can share with the hon. Gentleman the common ground that the Government attach great concern to the importance of safety. Nothing that we are considering would in any way undermine that. We shall always continue to give the highest priority to safety matters where nuclear power is concerned.

Economy

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy. [19579]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): My right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State meets representatives of the Scottish TUC from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.

Mr. Galloway: Does the Minister not understand the shock wave that has gone through Scottish public opinion with the news that plans are afoot to merge Scottish Nuclear with other nuclear facilities in order that they be privatised? Does he not understand that that ultimate privatisation madness—[Interruption.] In response to the cat calls from Conservative Members I should say that I am a lifelong supporter of the peaceful use of nuclear power. Does the Minister not understand that handing over this precious and dangerous jewel, on which thousands of Scottish jobs and millions of Scottish lives ultimately depend, to the Nick Leesons and the Barings banks of the international finance system is an ultimate privatisation madness which will destroy the Government long before the end of their term?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is once more dealing in matters of speculation and is trying to whip up opinion in Scotland before any proposals have been put forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has more than fully answered the question.

Mr. Jessel: In view of the importance of international relations to the Scottish economy, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the statement by the Indian high commissioner at a lunch today of the Indo-British parliamentary group that the Government of India are hoping to set up a consulate in Glasgow? I apologise for not giving my hon. Friend any warning of my question, but I have come straight from that lunch. Will my hon. Friend encourage his Department to work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give that excellent proposal as far as possible a fair wind?

Mr. Kynoch: I am very pleased to hear the news that my hon. Friend brings. Of course, we would welcome such a move and give any assistance that was necessary. My hon. Friend is simply bringing news that reinforces all the other inward investors who have come and been brought to Scotland in recent times, and who have brought increasing prosperity to the Scottish economy.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Under-Secretary accept that one important issue involving the Scottish economy is the future of manufacturing industry and that it is particularly important in north Scotland? Is he therefore aware of the concern that is felt by the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and others about the prospect of losing the Conoco Britannia jacket contract to Dragados in Cadiz, Spain? That would have implications for perhaps 1,000 jobs in north Scotland. What action is being taken by the Scottish Office to discuss that matter with Conoco and with the Minister for Industry and Energy to ensure that Nigg and Ardersier have the opportunity to discuss those matters in an open way and not to be undercut—a fact that has been shown in reports by Grampian regional council and Highland regional council?

Mr. Kynoch: I understand what the hon. Lady is talking about and, equally, I understand that Conoco has not yet made any announcement on the Britannia field jacket. Some of the problems of that sector of the industry are brought about by the changing pattern of getting oil out of the North sea, and by the use of floating rather


than fixed platforms. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy is in close contact with all the oil companies to try to ensure that the best future is achieved not only for industry but for manufacturers in the UK.

Mr. Gallie: Despite the kidology support for abandonment of clause IV, is my hon. Friend aware that the recent STUC conference voted to renationalise public services and public utilities in the UK? When next he meets the STUC, will he discuss the disastrous effects that that would have on the Scottish economy? Will he point out to it that at least the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) recognises that fact, although his followers do not seem to have latched on?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the proposals coming out of the STUC conference were exceedingly bad news for Scottish business. The conference proposed not only renationalisation of certain privatised utilities that have brought enormous benefits to the Scottish public in the form of reduced prices and increased services but the introduction of a national minimum wage, which would cause an enormous number of job losses in Scotland and be detrimental to a major section of the Scottish population.

Mr. McFall: Can the Under-Secretary clarify what the Secretary of State said earlier? Did he tell the House that he would stand by the assurances given to Sir Donald Miller that Scottish Nuclear would remain a distinct entity? Do the Under-Secretary and Secretary of State favour the merger of Scottish Nuclear with Nuclear Electric? In the face of immense security and safety problems, do they personally favour the privatisation of a merged company? That is not the package that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, but merely a sell-off and sell-out of a successful, high-technology Scottish business. Are the Government not down to selling the last spoon of the family silver?

Mr. Kynoch: I think the hon. Gentleman heard perfectly well what my right hon. Friend said. He was especially concerned to ensure that, in any discussions about the future of Scottish Nuclear or the nuclear industry, we try to achieve the best possible future, not only for Scotland, Scottish Nuclear and the Scottish people but for the UK nuclear industry and power generation in general.

Secondary School Spending

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in 1978–79, at constant prices. [19580]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Current expenditure per secondary pupil in 1992–93 was £2,914. That is 46 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. Detailed

figures showing budgeted running costs per pupil by school for 1994–95 were published last December and a copy has been placed in the Library.

Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that impressive increase in expenditure on education has been reflected in an improvement in the quality of secondary education in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I believe so. One substantial improvement has been in pupil-teacher ratios in Scotland. In secondary schools in 1979, there was one teacher for every 14.4 pupils. In 1993–94, there was one teacher for every 12.8 pupils. We have been moving in the right direction which benefits Scotland's children and our future.

Dr. Moonie: Would the Minister like to congratulate the Scottish electorate on ensuring that the high standards of education continue by failing to elect a single Tory council?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should not crow too soon over his victory. We want our education system in Scotland to be second to none. Expenditure is being increased by 1.72 per cent. in the local government settlement for this year. We believe that, although this has been a tight round, sufficient funds should be made readily available for those at the sharp end of education.

Mr. Beggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the valuable links and exchange visits which have been developed between Northern Ireland schools and Scottish schools, no doubt acknowledging the equal excellence of education provision in Northern Ireland? Will he continue to encourage the development of these valuable links between schools, recognising that the expenditure incurred represents good value for money?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are very much in favour of education exchanges. It is one of the great strengths of Scottish education that Scottish educationists have gone not just to Northern Ireland but to many countries throughout the world. That is a theme that we wish to continue and strengthen.

Mrs. Fyfe: Can the Under-Secretary explain why the share of gross domestic product devoted to education has fallen from 6.2 per cent., when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Prime Minister, to 4.7 per cent. today? How can he justify the way in which that contrasts with the never-ceasing rise in spending on the assisted places scheme? More than £10 million of public money was spent on the scheme in 1993 alone, of which 96 per cent. went on paying school fees, with an average cost of more than £3,000 per pupil. All this has happened when Lothian has had to cut its spending per pupil from £63 to £59.50. Why is Highland region having to consider halving the level of support staff in schools? Why is Orkney having to cut the number of teachers—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady appears to be making a statement rather than asking a direct question. She has raised many questions and they are coming out as a statement.

Mrs. Fyfe: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. Why is it a case of £10 million for just 55 schools, but tight financial settlements for the hundreds of local authority schools?


Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House today in clear terms why he supports such gross inequalities and giving such favourable treatment to the few?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall answer as many of the hon. Lady's questions as possible. We have had a greatly expanding economy and a falling pupil roll. Expenditure per pupil has increased by almost half in real terms since 1979. That must have a bearing on the achievements and performance of schools. I mentioned that Government-supported expenditure this year has increased by 1.72 per cent. Provided that pay increases are fully funded by efficiency savings, as is being done in the rest of the public sector, there should be no need for any cuts in front-line services, such as education.

Aberdeenshire

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans next to visit Aberdeenshire to discuss local government. [19581]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend visits Aberdeenshire regularly to discuss local government and other subjects.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman can tell the Secretary of State that, as and when he next visits Aberdeenshire, he will be warmly welcomed by the new Liberal Democrat administration on the unitary authority. It will be anxious to tell him, as has Grampian regional council, that it wants to know when the Government will give the capital consents needed to meet the education crisis that Grampian region faces.
May I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to an article in The Press and Journal today which talks about overcrowding at Oldmachar academy where 35 pupils are denied physical education next year because there are no facilities for them? Will he give an assurance and explanation? The hon. Gentleman said that he had cut £83,000 from Grampian's capital allocation for the current year. How will it be possible for us to build the extra academy, which he acknowledges is necessary, and to deal with the consequences of the redistribution of pupils as a result of reorganisation?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware that I am conscious of the situation in education in the new authority of Aberdeenshire. I am sure that not only the existing Grampian region but the new unitary authority of Aberdeenshire will continue to press the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), on the need within that area. In fact, in their allocations this year, those areas have fared proportionately better than many others in Scotland.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the recent local government elections in the city of Aberdeen, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats paid a heavy price for the policies of their parties' administration on Grampian regional council, which wilfully hiked up council tax and sold prime chunks of the city of Aberdeen without any regard to local residents or, indeed, to the city or the hinterland?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. That is absolutely typical of the Liberal Democrats, who are trying very hard to crow. What the hon. Member for

Gordon (Mr. Bruce) did not say was that his party formed an administration in Aberdeenshire only because of the significant support of a number of independents on the council.

Economy

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the prospects for the highlands economy; and if he will make a statement. [19583]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The success of this Government's economic policies means that the prospects for continuing growth towards long-term economic prosperity in the highlands look very encouraging.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister for the highlands, as he is sometimes known, think that he is fit to hold that title, given the noticeable absence of any worthwhile public support from him—there is support across the political spectrum, including that of the Scottish Conservative party, the communities and, indeed, the country as a whole—for the broad campaign to support Scottish rail services? Is it not about time that, instead of leaving it to the Highland region to have to go to the courts simply to try to get fair consultation, he showed that the pledge that those services need to be maintained on an on-going basis against a backdrop of public consultation across the summer—which was given by his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in the Scottish Grand Committee a few weeks ago—is upheld? Will the hon. Gentleman do that and, if need be, will he dig into his own budget to ensure that that fairness is established?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman last time when I said that I cannot divert funds from health, education or housing for the purposes to which he referred. The measures announced by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), on 8 February and the formal process to which the hon. Gentleman referred are to be carried out by the franchising director. What is important is that the rail regulator considers that decisions on service levels should not make it impracticable to restore services if the consultation process so concludes. Any final decision on minimum service levels will be for the franchising director to make after his consultation on the ScotRail passenger service requirement later this year.

Mr. McLeish: Does the Under-Secretary accept that the Government's assault on the railways in the highlands will create problems for the tourist industry? More important, why is the Scottish Office quite happy to stand idly by and see the Secretary of State for Transport, the franchising director and the rail regulator destroy crucial services? Is it not a disgrace that the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland simply do nothing? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that, even at this late stage, he will enter the fray and give some support to Highland regional council, which is fighting in the courts? The council need not have been in the courts if the Government had shown some guts. We have a spineless set of Ministers who are selling the highlands short.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is totally incorrect. The passenger service requirement will lay down a minimum requirement. That never existed


under nationalisation. Under nationalisation, British Rail could stop any service at any time. That will not happen in future. Obviously, there could be a great impact on tourism, but the great majority of tourists travel by road. Indeed, 12 per cent. of British holiday trips are based on travel to Scotland by train and 7 per cent. of holiday trips to the highlands are by train. There is no point in exaggerating that particular matter, but the point should be made properly during consultation.

Strategic Planning

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he is meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss strategic planning. [19584]

Mr. Lang: I have no plans at present to meet COSLA to discuss strategic planning.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the local authorities that are custodians of the green belt in

Lothian are amazed at the decision to refuse the Niddrie development? There was a public inquiry, and both the local authority and the public inquiry recommended that the development go ahead. The site is that of an old spoil heap at a colliery, not a green field. Why was an inquiry held? What was the use of the inquiry if the Government do not accept its findings? What conclusion can we draw from that decision, which has delayed the local authorities' strategic planning by the two years that it took to conduct the investigation?

Mr. Lang: My role is to consider the recommendations of the local public inquiry, but I also have responsibility to safeguard the green belt. I have to take account of the region's structure plan and of the proposals under consideration. I considered all the factors carefully and decided that the Cauldcoats farm proposal—a major development in the green belt whereby 250 to 300 houses might have been built—was not desirable. I therefore took the action that I did.

Points of Order

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notified your office of my point of order this morning. As you know, in nine days' time the eyes of the nation will be upon us as we hold a ceremony in the House to commemorate the end of the second world war.

Mr. Norman Hogg: In Europe.

Dr. Reid: No, the end of the second world war. Both VE day and VJ day will be commemorated at the same time.
The eyes of the world will be on us; Her Majesty will be here and you, Madam Speaker, will play a prominent part. Among other things, we shall commemorate the sacrifices of the people during that period. Obviously we shall also commemorate the leading role of our greatest war leader, Winston Churchill, whose statue, as it stands in Parliament square overlooking the Houses of Parliament, will be a focus of attention.
Have you had a chance to look at that statue recently, Madam Speaker? At present it is surrounded by fences, cranes and building materials, and it looks like something out of the blitz. Would it be in order for you, in your capacity as our main representative, to seek from Ministers some assurance that by next Friday all that will be cleared up, so that when the world's eyes are focused on us both Churchill, who will be symbolically remembered on that day, and the House will be in a state to celebrate those commemorations fittingly?

Madam Speaker: Yes, I am pleased to inform the House that I have been told by the Minister whom I believe has some responsibility for that area that London Underground and its contractors have been instructed to remove the hoardings and to make good the site in advance of the ceremony. That will include not only cleaning up the statue of Sir Winston Churchill but tidying up the entire area. The Minister responsible is here, and I shall hold him to that.

Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw to your attention a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph suggesting that the British taxpayer will be expected to pay £40 million in compensation to Hong Kong civil servants over the next two years? The money will not come out of the Hong Kong Exchequer, which contains £11 billion that will be paid to the Chinese in 1997. Is it not an absolute disgrace that that money is to be paid at a time when the Government are grudgingly—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order at all; it is certainly nothing to do with me.

BILL PRESENTED

FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Sam Galbraith, supported by Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Charles Kennedy and Mrs. Margaret Ewing, presented a Bill to make further provision for flood prevention in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Professional Football Compliance

Ms Kate Hoey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to establish a compliance unit for professional football in England and Wales with power to create and maintain proper financial controls and to report irregularities; and for connected purposes.
The 1994–95 football season will go down as the one that brought the shameful headlines about bungs, corruption, alleged match fixing, drugs, racist abuse, violence on and off the field and greed. The common thread in all this is the inability of the football authorities to tackle the malaise. There is a complete lack of leadership and this has not been helped by the complacency of the Department of National Heritage.
The game staggers from one controversy to another and at times it is difficult not to feel as Michael Herd did when he described football leaders in the Evening Standard as
A group of the willing picked from the unfit to do what they see as unnecessary.
My call for an independent inquiry into the state of our national game made in January was responded to by the Minister in a way that expressed his complete confidence in the Premier League's own inquiry.
Let me remind the House that it is 19 months since the Premier League commission was set up to inquire into allegations of undercover payments during transfer deals and into the role of agents in an attempt to restore the public's faith in the propriety of football. The commission was set up to examine the evidence given by Alan Sugar in the High Court on the suspicion about the transfer of Teddy Sheringham from Nottingham Forest to Tottenham. Although evidence has been taken from many, including Brian Clough, the commission has still to report its findings.
We still await findings on the many other allegations that leave a taint of suspicion, no matter how unjust, over managers and clubs. The commission also still has to report on the links between Terry Venables when he was manager of Tottenham and Eric Hall, the agent who acted for both the club and the players, in a clear conflict of interest. Not a week goes by without another dodgy deal being exposed by the media.
The Football Association says that the Premier League commission will look into the matter, and then there is silence. Just a few days ago, the Daily Mirror reported that a recent payment of £34,000 had been made to Rune Hauge by Tottenham, when Terry Venables was manager, for the agent's role in the £480,000 transfer of the Norwegian international player Erik Thorstvedt.
Terry Venables clearly broke the FA rules when he was running Spurs, authorising a whole range of payments to agents. Yet now he is running the English national team and the Premier League commission still has to clear him officially. Why the delay?
As the Premier League commission is meant to be inquiring into all those transfer deals involving Rune Hauge, the information has been passed to it. But will we ever hear anything? The only action that the commission has taken is to make one report on the George Graham affair, again a manager who was dealing with the same agent, Rune Hauge. It cost George Graham his job. Is anyone seriously suggesting that, amidst all the many

allegations that have gone to the Premier League commission, he is the only guilty man? Is it not time that we had some answers from the commission? There is widespread acceptance within and outside football that a compliance unit is needed.
On 11 January Graham Kelly wrote to me:
We are also examining the feasibility of a Compliance Unit aimed at strengthening the regulation of Clubs' finances.
But he conceded that:
This too is a difficult area.
David Dent of the Football League said on 20 January in a letter to me:
I personally support the concept of an Advisory and Compliance Unit being established within football but this has been rejected by the top clubs.
The problem is the growing power and influence of the Premier League combined with increasing financial clout resting with a handful of maverick chairmen.
Not all the chairmen of the Premier League opposed the idea when it was put to them recently. Dave Richards, chairman of Sheffield Wednesday, said in an interview with the Daily Mail in February:
By the year 2000, I think we'll have an independent team of investigators working inside football. I want it so any independent investigator can visit a club and be shown precise details relating to all transfers.
Thank goodness not all the chairmen of our Premier League clubs have their heads in the sand. Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, made the original call for an independent compliance unit some months ago. He said then:
The problems go very deep and part of it comes from the fact that the very people who need to agree to more effective monitoring of the clubs are the owners who have been involved in abuses in the past.
As was said in the debate on rugby league this morning, the public interest in this matter must be recognised. Corruption in football leads to money being syphoned off from clubs, which means that fans are being cheated and must pay higher admission charges. Let us not forget also that the public know that millions of pounds of public money go into football in various ways.
The financial forces are too powerful for some sports bodies to handle by themselves. That is definitely the case in football. A special compliance unit is needed to support the football authorities. It could use information available from the VAT commissioners and the Inland Revenue to examine particular problems, agents and transfer fees. With the power to examine transfers, the whole business could be much more transparent than the present system. Then, together with the Football Association, new and enforceable financial rules could be set to ensure that the public are not ripped off.
Without Parliament taking a firm stand, and without the Minister responsible for sport representing the public interest, backhander deals, bungs, unsolicited gifts, presents and fixes will continue to distort the sport, both on and off the pitch. It is the clear duty of Parliament to protect public interest. The worst excesses of the City are sometimes rampant in sport, but at least the City has some form of regulation. The Bill would give Parliament and the Minister the duty and power to clean up the sport. The public and the fans must have confidence in the national game. The governing bodies of sports rules were made


for fair-minded, honest people. They cannot cope with the crooks of today or even the international television moguls. Consequently, the public are not protected.
Too many interlocking interests in football conspire to keep the truth away from the public. Football must be clean to survive and thrive. Good, decent, hard-working people in football, of whom there are many, deserve more. Football is too important a national asset to be left only to Lancaster Gate. They need all the help that they can get, and the Bill offers that help.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Kate Hoey and Mr. Jim Lester.

PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL COMPLIANCE

Ms Kate Hoey accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to establish a compliance unit for professional football in England and Wales with power to create and maintain proper financial controls and to report irregularities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Appeal Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

POWER TO APPOINT INVESTIGATING OFFICERS

'The Commission may either themselves appoint an investigating officer to carry out inquiries or, if they think it appropriate, may require the appointment of an investigating officer as set out in section 18.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 2—Investigating officers—

'—(1) In this Act 'investigating officer' means—

(a) a person appointed by the Commission from among its staff,
(b) a person appointed by the Commission by way of a contract to undertake investigating duties, or
(c) a person appointed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (2) to (7) of section 18.

(2) Before making the appointment of an investigating officer, or approving the making of an appointment under section 18(6), the Commission must be satisfied that the person selected has the appropriate experience, skills and independence to carry out his investigatory duties.

(3) The investigating officer shall be responsible to the Commission for all aspects of the investigation for which he is appointed.'.

Amendment No. 27, in clause 18, page 14, line 26, after '(a)', insert
'if the Commission is satisfied that the matters to be investigated do not involve matters originally investigated by officers still serving in that force,'.

Amendment No. 38, in clause 19, page 15, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Government amendments Nos. 34 to 36.

Mr. Mullin: This Bill follows on nicely from the ten-minute Bill that we have just heard, which called for an independent force to investigate alleged corruption in football. I particularly liked the quotation by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) that the present arrangements consisted of a group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit to do what they thought was unnecessary. I am afraid that we are faced with the same position in the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice. One of the purposes of this group of amendments is to rectify that.
I am sorry to see that the Home Secretary is not in his place. One has always had the feeling that the Government's heart was not entirely in the Bill. One of my colleagues said the other day that the Bill was one of the few pieces of Government legislation on which the Opposition were keener than the Government. The Home Secretary may have a good reason for his absence, but it is yet another illustration of that possibility. In addition to the names on the Order Paper, my right hon. Friend the Member for


Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) have signed the new clause.
The new clause seeks to rectify what I regard as a potentially fatal flaw in the proposed criminal cases review commission. It gives the commission a reserve power to take an investigation into an alleged miscarriage of justice out of the hands of the police and give it to an independent investigator nominated by the commission in those cases—which, I anticipate, will be rare—in relation to which it appears that the police are not trying hard enough.
As the Bill stands, the commission will depend entirely on the police for the conduct of investigations. The investigation will be conducted by a police officer. That police officer will be appointed, not by the commission, but by the chief constable of the force in which the alleged miscarriage of justice has taken place. That chief constable can then appoint an officer from his own force or from another to conduct an investigation.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but, once appointed, the commission has no power to remove that officer. That can be done only by the chief constable who set up the inquiry in the first place. It is true that, under clause 18(6), the commission may veto an appointment made by a chief constable, and I welcome that, but it is not enough because, at the end of the day, the process of investigation will remain entirely in the hands of the police.
As Ministers have been at pains to emphasise, the commission will have the power to direct and supervise police inquiries. When I intervened on that matter in the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading, he told me:
there are no sensible limits on the power of the commission to direct and supervise the inquiries that are carried out on its behalf"—[Official Report, 6 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 28.]
but of course there are.
The inquiry must be carried out by a police officer; that is a limit. That police officer will be appointed, not by the commission, but by the chief constable of the force where the alleged miscarriage of justice has occurred; that is another limit. If that inquiry is not being carried out satisfactorily, the commission has no power to take the inquiry even to another police force. The commission can huff and puff as much as it likes, but ultimately it is a matter for the chief constable; that is a third limit. The commission does not have the power to authorise an inquiry by a person who is not a police officer; that is a fourth limit.
The powers of investigation that the Bill gives the commission appear to be modelled closely on those of the Police Complaints Authority. Ministers appear to think that the PCA is a success, whereas anyone who has had anything to do with it knows that it is a failure—through no fault on the part of many PCA officers, who are diligent. On occasion, however, they have been tearing their hair out with frustration at their inability to obtain adequate co-operation from the police.
For that and other reasons, the PCA has become so discredited that any sensible lawyer will advise a client with a complaint against the police to take a civil action rather than risk a trip to the PCA. The result has been a mushrooming of civil actions and out-of-court settlements, costing in total many millions of pounds. That surely cannot be a cause of satisfaction for Ministers.
It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Here we are, protesting our desire to put right the mistakes of the past, while building into the new system one of the central weaknesses of the old—the fact that, ultimately, investigations into alleged police malpractice will be carried out by police officers and by no one else.
We are confronted by a position in which, after a long series of scandals and years of deliberation, Ministers finally get round to creating what they say is an independent review body and it turns out to depend heavily on the one part of the criminal justice system that has let us down most badly—investigations of the police by the police.
How has that extraordinary state of affairs arisen? From where has come the pressure on Ministers that has caused them to build into their Bill that potential self-destruct mechanism? What mighty vested interest is bringing pressure to bear on them to take that road? Is it the lawyers? No; it is not. This is what the Bar Council has to say on the subject, in its briefing to members of the Standing Committee on the Bill:
The Bar Council is concerned that the commission is not presently given sufficient control over the appointment of an outside investigator, or over the course of the investigation. As presently drafted, the commission is unable to sack the investigator if they are unhappy with the course of the investigation, and are only empowered to veto the appointment.
In cases where there have been allegations of police misconduct giving rise to an alleged miscarriage of justice, it is important that the commission's independence should not be compromised by an alleged lack of independence in the investigatory process.
The Bar Council goes on to recommend that the commission should be empowered to appoint its own employees as investigating officers, which is what new clauses 1 and 2 seek to achieve. That is what the Bar has said; what about the solicitors? The Law Society, in a commentary on the Bill, said:
police officers conducting investigations on behalf of the commission must be isolated from other areas of police work, owe their loyalty to the commission and be specialists in investigation".
It continues:
The society believes this could only be achieved by the commission employing its own investigators and/or with a dedicated group of police officers who are seconded to the commission for a reasonable period of time, who are employed by the commission during the period of their secondment … The committee's investigators should also include civilians.
The Law Society is also in favour of new clauses 1 and 2. In fact, almost everyone who has had first-hand experience of dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice has emphasised the need for the commission not to be entirely dependent upon the police. I pressed that point when the Home Secretary was kind enough to receive me in his office as long ago as May last year. The organisation Justice, upon whose council distinguished lawyers of all political persuasions serve, stated:
Justice would wish to press ministers on the arguments of principle and practice for the CCRC to have its own core investigating team".
That view is also in line with new clauses 1 and 2. Justice goes on to say that the commission has fewer supervision duties than the Police Complaints Authority, on which it is apparently modelled. It says:
The PCA must supervise police inquiries in certain circumstances … The commission is under no such duties … The investigating officer is under no duty to pass on the evidence accumulated during the inquiries, but only to prepare a report for submission to the commission and the chief constable.


As Home Office Ministers will be aware, Cardinal Hume, together with Lords Jenkins of Hillhead, Rees and Scarman and the late Lord Devlin, has taken a close interest in the matter. In a letter to The Times of 6 March he complained that the Bill made the commission too dependent on the police. He continued:
It appears to provide no reserve power for the commission to instigate and carry out investigations using only its own suitably qualified staff and it appears to leave the commission with insufficient powers effectively to plan, direct and supervise police investigations carried out on its behalf".
New clauses 1 and 2 are intended to provide a remedy to the fundamental defect identified by the Cardinal. The Association of Chief Police Officers has told me that it is satisfied with the Bill as it is currently drafted—although that is not the impression that one or two of its senior members have given me in private. The Police Federation says that it is also satisfied with the proposals in the Bill, although several senior officers from the federation have expressed a different view in private. Paradoxically, the Police Federation has expressed support for independent inquiries conducted by the Police Complaints Authority. So we have a situation where almost the only people willing to support investigations being carried out exclusively by the police are the police themselves.
In support of his case, the Home Secretary also cited the royal commission which concluded—one suspects with some reluctance—that there was no practical alternative to investigations being carried out by the police. I think that the royal commission was wrong about that. The history of investigations carried out by one group of police officers into the activities of another is so unsatisfactory as to outweigh any practical advantages of leaving the conduct of such inquiries exclusively to the police. Whatever view one takes of the royal commission's conclusion, nothing in its report says that the police should have the final say over which force is appointed and which officers are selected, nor does it say that the review body should not have the power to remove the inquiry from a police force that is seen not to be trying hard enough.
In short, nothing in the royal commission's report is inconsistent with what is proposed in new clauses 1 and 2. If new clause 1 were implemented, all investigations would still be carried out by the police, at least initially. The only difference would be that their minds would be concentrated by the knowledge that if they failed to inquire seriously, the inquiry could be taken away from them.
I have discussed the matter with Lord Runciman, who chaired the royal commission, and he has kindly authorised me to say this:
Although the Royal Commission envisaged investigations being carried out by a designated police force under the direct supervision of the new review body, that body should not be precluded from recruiting onto its own staff trained investigators who would not necessarily be serving police officers.
I am grateful to Lord Runciman for clarifying that important point and I hope that this afternoon we will not hear any more Ministers calling him in aid in support of their case.
While we are on the subject of the royal commission, there is nothing in its report to justify the provision in the Bill that the police and not the commission should have the final say as to which force and which officers should carry out the investigation. That was dreamed up entirely in the Home Office.
The Home Secretary has also justified his decision to leave investigations entirely in the hands of the police by pointing to the police inquiries which have led to the quashing of wrongful convictions. In the debate on Second Reading, he referred to the inquiries into the Guildford, Birmingham, Stefan Kiszko and Darvel brothers cases. I readily acknowledge that thorough and professional police investigations played an important role in each of those instances.
It is an unhappy fact, however, that for every honest and professional investigation conducted by the police into an alleged miscarriage of justice, I can point to several other police investigations that were anything but honest and professional.
To take the Birmingham case, the first investigation by an outside police force was commissioned within weeks of the original arrests in 1974. It was conducted by Mr. David Owen, then the assistant chief constable of Lincolnshire and until recently the chief constable of North Wales. The purpose of the inquiry was to discover who had been responsible for the injuries inflicted on the six men charged with the pub bombings during their first days in custody.
Had the inquiry been conducted honestly, the tragic events that followed might have been avoided. Mr. Owen, however, chose to conduct a dishonest inquiry. In the face of clear evidence to the contrary, he exonerated the police and pinned all the blame on police officers. The Owen inquiry is a classic example of what happens when one set of police officers investigates the activities of others.
In September 1986, following the publication of my book on the case, the Home Secretary ordered a second police inquiry into the Birmingham case. The officer they chose to conduct it was Mr. Tom Meffen, an assistant chief constable with the West Midlands police force, the force that had the most to lose should the truth ever emerge. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Meffen concluded that there was nothing to worry about.
In 1987, the Home Office ordered a third inquiry into the Birmingham case. It was conducted by the Devon and Cornwall police and headed by Superintendents Reay and Essery. It was clear from the outset—and I met the officers on several occasions—that they saw their role primarily as discrediting the new evidence that I and others had patiently collected, and that is what they did. As a result, another opportunity was lost.

Mr. David Ashby: Were not the Devon and Cornwall police at that time far too busy investigating "Operation Countryman", which resulted in no prosecutions whatsoever?

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who also put his name to the new clause, but I have no knowledge of that matter. If he will forgive me, I will avoid a direct answer. If that force was involved in another major investigation, that might explain why its mind was not entirely on the ball. I do not think that it was too busy, but it was not interested in conducting a proper inquiry. I had the advantage of meeting the gentlemen involved and discussing the issues with them.
In 1987, another opportunity was lost to put matters right, when a large amount of money was wasted on a public inquiry that everyone concerned knew would lead nowhere. In 1990, following a prolonged public outcry, the Home Secretary ordered a fourth police inquiry into


the Birmingham case. It was also conducted by Devon and Cornwall constabulary, but this time the chief constable himself, Mr. John Evans, took charge. It was a thorough and professional inquiry and led to the result that we all know. However, it was not the first inquiry but the fourth. If any of the previous inquiries had been conducted with the same rigour, the entire scandal might have been brought to an end many years earlier and a great deal of time, money and anguish saved.
4 pm
After the convictions were quashed, there was a fifth inquiry. Believe it or not, it was conducted by the West Midlands police. It was intended to discover who had carried out the bombing. The force appointed for that purpose was least qualified to arrive at a sensible conclusion. That inquiry lasted more than two years and involved more than 40 officers. I leave aside the question of whether it was wise to entrust that task to a police force which, to a man and even to this day, refuses to accept that the real culprits got away. I will say only that that inquiry also left a great deal to be desired.
Much time was wasted interviewing people who did not need to be interviewed. There was widespread suspicion that the inquiry's main purpose was to reconvict the persons whose convictions had been quashed. Later, there were selective leaks to the media that could have come only from officers serving on the inquiry. Their purpose appeared to be to rescue the four West Midlands officers then awaiting trial on charges of perverting the course of justice. In the end, that inquiry, like most of the others, led nowhere. I make no complaint because its task was the most difficult of all. It was never likely that sufficient evidence could be unearthed nearly 20 years after the event which would lead to the arrest of the real culprits.
The Home Secretary cites the role of the police in the Birmingham case as evidence for his contention that the police and only the police are capable of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. With the exception of the 1990 inquiry, exactly the opposite has proved true. We do not have to look far for other examples of alleged miscarriages of justice where long and expensive police investigations led nowhere. The Carl Bridgewater case is now the subject of the eighth police investigation, and still amateurs are turning up evidence that previous police inquiries overlooked.
I regard that case as the litmus test of the new climate of straightforwardness that is alleged to be abroad in our criminal justice system. So far, the omens are not auspicious. All the usual people are behaving in the usual way. In the Home Office and in the police, there appears to be a steely determination not to face unpalatable truths. If ever there was a case for independent investigation of the sort permitted under new clause 1, it is the Carl Bridgewater case. I cite also the Brian Parsons case, which is of particular interest because the police force involved is Devon and Cornwall—the same force praised for its good practice elsewhere. By a happy coincidence Mr. Parsons' case will be the subject of a Channel 4 "Trial and Error" programme this evening. On Monday, the chief constable, Mr. Evans—for whom I have much respect, and with whom I had many dealings during the course of his inquiry into the Birmingham case—held, I regret to say, a foolish press conference at which he said

intemperate things about everyone involved in trying to raise the Parsons case again. Moreover, in the course of the press conference he made it clear that he had not seen the film he was talking about. That was most unwise. Funnily enough, it is similar to what happened in the Birmingham case. The former chief constable of Birmingham, Geoffrey Dear, did the same thing—and in due course lived to regret what he had said. Mr. Evans, too, will live to regret some of his remarks on Monday.
In the Brian Parsons case substantial new evidence has been unearthed. As usual, the work has been done by journalists and a diligent solicitor. Faced with that, the Home Office asked Mr. Evans to set up an inquiry. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Evans appointed one of his own senior officers—from the very force that faces embarrassment should the conviction be quashed—to conduct the inquiry. Unsurprisingly again, the officer in question, Mr. Keith Portlock, has concluded that there are no grounds for reopening the case. Indeed, from the outset he made it clear to anyone who cared to listen that the inquiry was going nowhere. His primary objective seems to have been avoiding the intervention of an outside police force.
I say this to Mr. Portlock and to anyone else who may be interested: the Brian Parsons case is not going to die down. I and others are taking a close interest in how it is being handled. It is a classic example of the folly of allowing the police to investigate their own alleged misconduct. I hope that it will be resolved before the independent review body is established, but if it is still unresolved by that time, it is an early candidate for independent investigation of the sort proposed in new clauses 1 and 2.
Ministers have given cost as one reason why investigations must be kept in the hands of the police. The truth is that what they propose is by far the most expensive option. Millions of pounds have been wasted on bogus police inquiries, and even those that have been properly conducted have tended to be very expensive. They are often regarded by the officers involved as an excuse for unlimited overtime. A great deal of time is spent investigating matters that do not need to be investigated.
So a desire to keep costs down cannot possibly be one of the reasons for keeping inquiries exclusively with the police. As the Home Secretary will be aware, the police themselves are worried about the enormous costs of these investigations. Indeed, I believe that a delegation from the Association of Chief Police Officers will be coming to discuss the matter at the Home Office shortly. Given that concern, I am mystified to know why the Home Secretary should choose the most expensive, least efficient and least credible system for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice.
There is actually a precedent for an independent inquiry into allegations of corruption. In 1973 in Hong Kong, ruled of course by Britain, there were big scandals in the Hong Kong police force. They led to a series of inquiries that got nowhere. In the end an inquiry was set up under Sir Alistair Blair-Kerr. Following his report, on 17 October 1973, the Governor of Hong Kong set up a special force to investigate alleged corruption. He said at the time:
I believe that it is quite wrong … that the police, as a force, should carry the whole responsibility for action in this difficult and elusive field.


As with the case that I have described, he added:
A further and conclusive argument is that public confidence is very much involved. Clearly the public would have more confidence in a unit that was entirely independent, and separate from any department of the Government, including the police.
So let no one say that this has never been done before. It was done in Hong Kong, no doubt sanctioned by the British Government of the day—a Tory Government.
Finally, it is in the interests of everyone who cares about justice—not least the police—that the proposed criminal cases review commission be successful. As it stands, there is a serious danger that the body will not be credible and that, in due course, there will be a further series of scandals. New clauses 1 and 2 will go some way towards remedying the principal defects of this Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Ashby: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who, in many ways, could be said to be the author of the Bill. His investigations, his tenacity and his belief in justice and the truth have uncovered some of our country's worst scandals, certainly in my time, and he has so often been proved to be right.
I readily admit that, when the hon. Gentleman first raised issues such as the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—I hope that I have always got the numbers right—many of us were highly sceptical. We knew about the inquiries that were held and of their results, and felt that the police must, of course, be right, and that therefore the hon. Gentleman must be wrong.
We heard anecdotal evidence from former Home Secretaries, one of them a Labour Home Secretary. That confirmed my view, because I thought that he must know and be right, and that the hon. Gentleman must be wrong in respect of at least one case. It has been proved time and again that the previous Home Secretary was wrong and the hon. Gentleman right.
We must therefore be very careful about this Bill and carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman has to say about it. He gives vent to a feeling that there are imperfections. We know there are, but there is a tremendous feeling that we should not accept that, but should say that everything is perfect when we know that it is not. We need only consider the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four to realise the imperfections that there were and are in the police force.
We complain a great deal about the Court of Appeal in those cases, but we must realise that the Court of Appeal is tainted with the same background as I had, and everyone else: the investigations kept saying wrong, wrong, wrong—and wrong the hon. Gentleman was not.
I have said that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would make an ideal chairman of the proposed body if we wished to ensure absolutely that we had a completely independent body. I do not resile from that at all. The hon. Gentleman may sit down the aisle on the Opposition Benches but he is a very original, honest and honourable thinker on the subject, and I pay tribute to him.
I was pulling the hon. Gentleman's leg a bit when I spoke about Operation Countryman, but the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the question of the Police Complaints Authority, because a most exceptional amount of corruption was involved. The Devon and Cornwall police force investigated. I am pretty certain that Operation Countryman, despite the enormous

number of allegations, which were undoubtedly true bills, never got as far as a trial. I am not even sure whether it got as far as bringing charges. That was an example of one police force investigating another.
From my early days at the Bar, I well remember the investigation of what was called the porn squad, and I have never forgotten the impact that that trial at the Old Bailey had on me. We learned of the chief inspector who had joined the porn squad and was sitting at his desk when someone came up to him and said, "Here's your money." He asked what it was, and was told that it was his cut. He did not know what to do, and refused the money, but he was told that it was too late and the money was put in his drawer. In no time at all, his drawer was absolutely stuffed with money. He went on the tube and got rid of it by throwing it out on to the line as the train went along. I remember that man so well, because he burst into tears and cried almost throughout the trial while he was giving evidence. I could only describe him as a man who was raped—his soul was raped. The case was a good lesson for me. He was, nevertheless, tainted. There was virtually no police officer in London of any seniority who had not served in the porn squad, and the problem probably went to the very top of the Metropolitan police.
4.15 pm
Those of us at the criminal Bar at the time were uncomfortably aware that no one who had served in the porn squad could possibly have been untainted. Although what I am talking about happened 20 years ago, some of the officers may still be in the force. I am sure that they regret what happened. We had to bring in people from outside London to aid the police.
Can hon. Members imagine what would have happened had the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ordered a deputy commissioner to investigate the allegations about the porn squad? Unfortunately, one of the deputy commissioners at the time, and possibly both, had served in the squad. They knew everyone, from the top of the force to the bottom.
Another pet subject of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is the masons. I do not know how many hon. Members are masons now, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should investigate freemasonry in the police force. In any event, it is the same tainting that should worry us.
The new commission is supposed to make things whiter than white and transparent, and ensure, as far as possible, that there are no more miscarriages of justice. I shall use the example of the porn squad case, and those who have been at the Bar will know what I am talking about when I say that, as they would if I referred to the West Midlands case or the Countryman case. In such circumstances, the one thing that we should want is to feel happy about the person in charge. We should not be at all happy if anyone connected with the police in any way were in charge of the investigation.
Such a person might direct police officers to do certain things, but should not be involved in getting the investigation under way. Perhaps we should look for someone like a district attorney, a lawyer, someone who was independent with an investigative mind and who could perhaps direct the police about what he wanted investigated, but who was not under the full and final control of the police force.
New clause 1 highlights a weakness in the Bill. We have waited a long time for the Bill, not because of politicians but because of the Home Office itself. Getting the Home Office to give up any of its powers is one of the most difficult things to do. It is being asked to give up a little power, and does not want to relinquish any more. I dread to think what will be said about new clause 6, which says that
the Commission may refer a matter to the Secretary of State for his consideration of whether to recommend the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy.
The Home Office is having to give up some but not all of its powers. It will retain what makes it feel safe and comfortable. I am not so sure that we should feel so safe and comfortable.
All right, let us throw out new clause 1. Let us go against it. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South has been proved right in the past, and I predict that, in seven, eight, perhaps nine, years' time—it will not be immediate, because these things do not happen immediately—someone will table an amendment to the Criminal Appeal Act. It will be amendment No. 1 or new clause 1, and everybody will say, "Absolutely right." It will go through on the nod, because something will have happened—perhaps a miscarriage of justice—and we will have realised that we were wrong. I predict that that will happen.
It is with reluctance that we have the Criminal Appeal Bill. I agree with the analysis of the Bill given by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, who said that it is a Government Bill that the Opposition want more than the Government. It has that amusing aspect to it. I think that we see a reluctance, and a refusal to accept new clause 1 is part of that.
I make no bones about it. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not vote against the Government on new clause 1. I have told him that I am prepared to put my name to the new clause, to push it and to let my views be known, but, as I have said right from the beginning, I am not prepared to vote against the Government, and I will not, despite my speech. People may say that I am giving in, but I am not.
I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider the points that have been made and that will be made. We are not asking for a great deal here. It will be rare, but there will be times when we will want to appoint a district attorney-type person to oversee an investigation. Public opinion will demand it.
There has to be provision somewhere. It does not mean that the police will be excluded, but they will be under the direction of someone else, who will be telling them what they should look for, how they should look for it and what they should produce. That is what we need. It is the ultimate safeguard. When we have that, we shall be able to say that the Bill is satisfactory.
It has taken a long time to get this Bill and to reach the stage that we are at now. I ask my hon. Friends please to think again on this one.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I support new clause 1. I shall also speak to amendment No. 27, which has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats and deals with a situation in which officers are asked to investigate

matters that were originally investigated by officers of the same force. That was one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
New clause 1 is a moderate new clause. Critics of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South might be surprised that it is so moderate, as they would regard him as almost extreme in these matters, but it is a perfectly sensible power, enabling the commission, where it thinks it appropriate, to appoint an investigating officer, on its terms, within its discretion. It addresses an extraordinary weakness in the Bill—that the commission does not have the staff or capacity to mount its own investigations, even in the rarest of cases. It is difficult to understand why the Government should have circumscribed the commission to such an extent.
I have been persuaded all along of the royal commission's argument that the greatest repositories of people able to carry out investigations are the police forces, and that therefore the large majority of investigations would be most appropriately carried out by police forces who not only have the skilled manpower to do it, but could be organised in structures and with support staff, which makes it practicable to mount an investigation, without enormous upheaval. That will be necessary and appropriate for a great many investigations.
I have argued that it might be desirable for the commission to second police officers or to have retired police officers working for it, carrying out further or supervisory functions, but in general I have accepted that police officers are best able to carry out such investigations.
But situations will arise when the commission might consider it appropriate to use its own staff to carry out an investigation, and will be precluded from so doing by the way in which the Bill is cast. I cannot understand why the supervisory responsibilities assigned to the commission are so limited and circumscribed, particularly when the analogy is made with the Police Complaints Authority.
I am not such a stringent critic of the Police Complaints Authority as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. It does much excellent work. It does not satisfy everyone all the time, and the possibility of successful legal action as an alternative to it was raised by the hon. Gentleman. But the lay members of the Police Complaints Authority carry out supervisory responsibilities over investigations in a way that the Bill does not envisage happening for the investigations that will take place on criminal appeals.
One wonders why the commission should be told almost from the start to keep its distance from an investigation and have such limited powers of supervision.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's point about the limited powers of supervision. Clause 19(1) states:
A person appointed as the investigating officer in relation to a case shall undertake such inquiries as the Commission may from time to time reasonably direct".
There, and in other parts of the Bill such as clause 19(4), the commission is clearly in the driving seat, with full powers to control an investigation.

Mr. Beith: That may well rest on the interpretation of those and other parts of the Bill. I understood clause 19(1) to relate to the overall subject of inquiry, rather than to


particular lines of inquiry within the whole. If my interpretation is too restrictive, I shall be pleased to hear it. I hope that the Minister's definition this afternoon will be read by the courts now that they have taken to reading Hansard in the way that they did not use to do.

Mr. Mullin: It is true that the commission has powers and will certainly be consulted, but at the end of the day is it not a fact that the chief constable of the force where the offence or the alleged irregularities occurred will have the final say in who is appointed and how the investigation is conducted? That is the central problem.

Mr. Beith: Exactly so. It is that to which I want to turn.
I should have preferred to see a presumption in the Bill against the force which carried out the original investigations being the force responsible for carrying out the inquiries that the commission directs. It ought surely to be a presumption that, if there is any reason to believe that the original investigations were seriously defective—if they were seriously defective, it has to be a possibility that there was some malfeasance in the conduct of the original investigation—another force or officers from another force should carry out the inquiry. That presumption is not found in the Bill.
Therefore, I tabled amendment No. 27, which says that the matter should be investigated by a particular force only
if the Commission is satisfied that the matters to be investigated do not involve matters originally investigated by officers still serving in that force".
That is reasonably narrowly drawn, but it addresses the likelihood that, in a number of cases, forces will be directed to carry out an inquiry which will then be carried out by officers who, even if they do not include some of those who were involved in the first investigation, are closely associated with them, work closely with them and will continue to work closely with them when the investigation is over, and who will not wish to believe that their trusted colleagues, known to them over so many years, with whom they may have worked on many cases and upon whose previous good work they may have depended for their own safety and the success of other inquiries, could have made fundamental mistakes—or, still worse, have acted improperly—in the conduct of the original inquiry.
Even if none of that were the case, members of the public are likely to believe that it is. Therefore, there should be a presumption that, in such circumstances, that risk is avoided as far as possible by going to another force. We should not simply rely on an ad hoc decision being taken to do so, because there is overwhelming pressure and public dissatisfaction with the possibility that the same force will be involved. I do not see why that presumption could not have been built into the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, I wonder why, and in what recesses of the Home Office, pressure has been exerted to circumscribe the Bill in that way.
To a significant extent, the Bill is about maintaining and improving public confidence in the police, particularly in the ability to undertake investigations where the police may have made fundamental mistakes, or where police misconduct may have taken place. Therefore, why circumscribe the processes in such a way that that confidence will not be as strong as it could possibly be?
Some people would say that bringing in officers from another force is not a sufficient protection. They may regard the police as a seamless robe of men and women, bound together by the same calling, work, activity, and a certain amount of movement between police forces, particularly at more senior levels. Some evidence exists of that insufficient protection in some of the cases that we have discussed. In others, however, good, vigorous inquiries have taken place where other forces have come in.
4.30 pm
In areas apart from criminal appeals, it is a common feature of police life for investigations to be carried out by officers from another force. I hope that the Home Office clearly understands, and that officers are left in no doubt, that all the people involved in the management of the police expect people who undertake investigations into other forces to maintain the highest standards. Through their work, a number of officers have justified that degree of confidence. It would be rare, therefore, for it to be necessary to use the direct staff of the commission, or a body separately appointed by it, to undertake investigations, but that possibility should be available.
It may be somewhat more common for people to believe that investigations should be carried out by officers who are not from the force that is the subject of complaint in the appeal, and that a presumption should exist in favour of those officers conducting the investigation if that force and its officers are still around.
I do not understand why the Government, having taken the decision to introduce the Bill, and having taken on this major issue, should now balk at its smaller but significant features, which are important to public confidence. If we are to make a success of the Bill, we should ensure that it can attract maximum public confidence. The absence of a presumption in favour of an independent inquiry by officers from another force, and the absence of a clear route to a wholly separate and independent inquiry, where that is necessary, seem a great weakness.

Mr. John Hutton: I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I apologise to him and the House for that, but I understand that he rightly expressed the view that this is a rare example of a Government Bill that has more support from the Opposition than from Conservative Members. The consequences of that state of affairs are fairly clear in key aspects of the Bill. One of the most important is that the Bill's provisions dealing with the conduct of inquiries and investigations are characterised by a spirit of half-heartedness.
The Minister has made a number of interventions. He has tried to argue the case, as he did in Standing Committee, that the Bill as now drafted is adequate and gives the commission sufficient flexibility to conduct relevant inquiries. A close investigation of the Bill, however, particularly clauses 18 and 19, around which the group of amendments and new clauses have been constructed, reveals a different picture.
Those new clauses and amendments are designed not to restrict the commission's freedom or flexibility to operate, but to improve them. The commission will need them if it is to discharge its principal function: to boost confidence in the criminal justice system, which has been


haemorrhaging in the past few years, following the appalling miscarriages of justice in the 1970s in relation to alleged IRA terrorists.
The amendments are designed not to undermine the commission's work, but to improve it. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who has now left the Chamber, has said that it is immensely important that, on this occasion, when we have an opportunity to discuss these matters, we get the commission right. I concur entirely. The hon. Gentleman is right. There will be future occasions when hon. Members will come back to the House with amendments to the Bill, when it is an Act, because it is clearly deficient.
In general terms, the amendments and new clauses raise two fundamental issues of importance which go to the heart of the Bill. First, they are designed to increase public confidence in the commission's work; secondly, they are an attempt to ensure proper independence and objectivity in the inquiries that will be carried out by investigating officers on behalf of the commission. Clauses 18 and 19, as now drafted, may not be helpful in respect of either of these two important matters.
We need to try to do two things at this stage. We need to strengthen the powers of the commission over the appointment and work of investigating officers. New clause 1 and new clause 2 would achieve that in an important respect. I am not sure that Government amendment No. 34 adds anything of substance to clause 19(4); this is an important point. All that amendment No. 34 appears to do is to drop the reference to "the public interest" which is contained in clause 19(4), and to substitute a rather vague and unspecific form of words.
The Minister commented on clause 19(1) when the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was speaking. The point was raised in Committee that the wording of clause 19(1), far from giving the commission the flexibility that the Minister implied, was likely to invite problems between the commission and the investigating officers in the conduct of some of these important inquiries.
The point needs to be made again on this occasion that the wording of clause 19(4), especially the use of the word "reasonably" in line 6, is almost an invitation for investigating officers and the commission to have arguments about the correct line that a particular inquiry should take. It invites investigating officers, and perhaps chief constables of police, to take the view that the commission is not acting reasonably in giving instructions to an investigating officer. Under clause 19(1), the commission has to be acting "reasonably" in giving instructions to investigating officers.
On a general level, we are entitled to assume that the commission will always act reasonably, so including that word in the Bill may be superfluous. We assume that the commission, by its nature, will always act reasonably, especially given that the Prime Minister will have the ultimate say over who will be appointed to it. Clause 19(1), as the Minister presented it in his intervention, does not address the issues to which the new clauses and amendments relate. The Bill as drafted is not helpful in securing the two important tasks that I have identified.
We need to eliminate any suggestion of conflicts of interest arising between investigating officers and their own police forces. There is the potential—I do not put it higher than that—in the Bill for conflicts of interest to arise between the responsibility of investigating officers to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice and their natural and perfectly understandable loyalty and sympathy for colleagues in their own constabulary. We expect that loyalty in the police force, and, in most cases, it is entirely appropriate. It is not, however, appropriate in these circumstances, and not when these issues are being investigated.
We should think carefully about whether, in some cases, we may put investigating officers into completely impossible situations. If we do so, we shall undermine not only public confidence in the police and the work of our police forces, which is important to maintain, but the credibility that the investigations should have.
We should follow the advice that my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have given to the House today, and always assume that it is not appropriate for police officers to conduct investigations on behalf of the commission when their fellow officers from the same force may have been involved in alleged miscarriages of justice. I do not think that that is helpful. I cannot understand why that appears to be the normal course governing the appointment of investigating officers. The Bill seems to imply that.
One of the first suggestions in the Bill is that it will be appropriate for the chief constable of the original investigating force to appoint one of his fellow officers to carry out the investigations. In fact, that should be the last possible suggestion on which the commission should be acting. It is much more important that we give the commission a power—a general power in some cases as outlined by the new clauses—to appoint its own investigating officers. If that is not appropriate, it should appoint a police officer from another force, which is not connected with the original inquiry, to conduct inquiries on its behalf. That seems to be a much more logical sequence of events than the prescription in the Bill.
I do not want to over-emphasise the point and ham it up, but it is fundamental. We do not need over-exaggeration to make any of these arguments because the strength of them is very clear. We want to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up, which would be fundamentally unhealthy for the whole nature of our criminal justice system. We want to exclude the possibility of anyone, whether it is the alleged victim of the miscarriage of justice or anyone else, alleging that an entire inquiry had been the subject of a cover-up.
Unfortunately, the Bill will allow such arguments and allegations to continue to be put. The whole point of the Bill is to get away from that and to construct a state of affairs which will make it impossible for such suggestions to be made. Of course there will always be an opportunity for people to put such arguments—that is the nature of the beast—but we need to limit the possibilities. The new clauses address that issue and I am thinking especially of amendment No. 27, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred.
It has often been said, and it was said throughout the proceedings in Committee, how important it is that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. That is one of the standard political cliches of our time, but it is extremely relevant to the Bill because it is the Bill's


target. Frankly, justice has not been seen to be done in far too many cases, with consequences that we have all noted. Now we have an opportunity to address that target and to get it right.
I hope that the Minister will advise his hon. Friends, very much in the light of the views expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West, to think again about this issue and indicate that he is prepared at some later stage to concede the arguments that have been made.

Mr. David Trimble: New clause 1 is very seductive and it has been generally presented this afternoon in terms of studied moderation. The clause merely gives the commission discretion to depart from the procedures in clauses 18 and 19 if it considers it appropriate and to appoint its own investigating officer. A proposal to widen the discretion of the commission is attractive. The new clause is a far cry from the proposals and arguments which were put forward on Second Reading. Then, the argument pressed very strongly was that the commission must have its own investigating forces, must use only those and must not go through the police, which I did not find at all attractive.

Mr. Mullin: I must say that I do not remember anybody arguing that we should not go through the police. It has always been understood by those of us who take the view set out in the new clause that most investigations will continue to be carried out by police officers. All we are talking about, and all we have ever talked about, is a reserve power. It is quite true that we have also talked about the commission having its own team of dedicated investigators, but they would be only a very small part of the operation. Indeed, Lord Runciman, as I quoted in my speech, said that he would support that.

Mr. Trimble: None the less, I feel that there is a significant difference between the tone in which the argument is being presented today and the tone in which it was presented on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) must take care not to push me back into the position that I adopted on Second Reading, when I am moving somewhat in his direction.

Mr. Mullin: I shall keep quiet. Thank you.

Mr. Trimble: The proposal is attractive in that it enables the commission to have its own investigating officers if it so wishes. The argument has also been presented in terms of public confidence, public perception and so on, and one can readily identify with that.
However, as was said on Second Reading and in Committee—so I repeat it fairly briefly now—it is not right to use the commission's own investigating forces as a matter of course or, indeed, in any other than the most exceptional circumstances. I feel that there is a real danger, in that if the commission has its own investigating officers they will operate, and be seen by police officers and police forces, as a form of anti-police police force, and that will create and reinforce a set of new institutional loyalties and jealousies.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to past cases in which investigation was not carried out by the police as thoroughly as it might have been. There is some suspicion that the police officers investigating those

matters were more concerned to vindicate the original investigation and to cover up for it than to inquire further. I well understand those worries. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had similar experience in Northern Ireland, when an investigation has, as far as we can see, been motivated more by a desire for damage limitation and to try to rescue the original miscarriage of justice from the point of view of the police, than by the interest of serving justice.
That has happened in the past, and the danger exists that it could happen in the future. A police force could cover up even more effectively where the commission had its own investigating officer, who would be a complete outsider to police forces in general, whatever his background might originally have been. I suspect that it would be easy, or at least possible, for police forces to conceal things from an outside investigating officer.
I do not argue entirely against new clause 1, because it adds a discretion and it may be a good thing that such discretion should exist, but it would not be appropriate to use the provision except in the most exceptional cases. It is essential that, not only in the normal run of cases but in as many cases as possible, investigations are carried out by police officers.
The whole object of the exercise must be not to reinforce the bad aspects of police culture that have been described and properly criticised in the debate. We must take care not to reinforce the negative feelings that some police officers have that lead them to think that they must defend the actions of other police officers in all cases and cover up their wrongdoing.
Instead, we must lay down and follow procedures that will change the culture within police forces so that the feeling of defensiveness is diminished and replaced by an overriding desire to ensure that justice is done, even if that means uncovering circumstances in which other police officers have behaved improperly. That is what we want to happen, and that is what I hope will happen.
Much will depend on the commission and the way in which it operates. The new clause, like so many of the other provisions, simply gives it discretion and powers. The crucial factor will be the way in which the commission operates. The view that I expressed on Second Reading remains my main view on the matter. As the Minister said on Second Reading, the important requirement is that the commission must be in a position to control, to direct and to supervise. It is crucial that the powers to control, direct and supervise the details of particular cases exist, and that they are used effectively.
I welcome Government amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36. The Minister will realise that I particularly welcome amendment No. 35, which reflects an amendment that I tabled in Committee. It plugs a small gap in the Bill. I am delighted that those powers of control and supervision are being strengthened, but the crucial thing is how the commission operates them.
I am sure that there will be those in the House, in the Home Affairs Select Committee and elsewhere, who will watch closely how the commission exercises its powers. I am sure that the matter will come back here again if there is a feeling that the commission is not exercising its powers according to the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the speeches that we have heard here today. It will also come back if we do not achieve a change in the culture of not only the police force but other people involved in


the criminal justice system, who tend sometimes not to be sufficiently open-minded and alert to the possibility of a mistake.
I am not sure what advice I shall give to my colleagues if new clause 1 is pressed to a vote. My speech on it has leaned to both sides. I do not object to providing extra powers to the commission if it is simply a matter of extra discretion, but I should hate to see the provision in new clause 1 regarded as the normal course. The normal course ought to be the procedures laid down in clauses 18 and 19. Our concentration should be on ensuring that that procedure is effective, works in the way that is intended, does not work in the way that some hon. Members fear and does not lead to the sort of cover-up that some hon. Members fear.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has had to say on new clause 1, but he left us hanging in the air. The House must share a concern that the police should not for ever be perceived as the villains in the case. I do not hold that view and I believe that the vast majority of hon. Members do not either. There has been concern over a number of years about one or two important incidents, but that is nothing out of the ordinary for great enterprises such as our police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann rightly said that the integrity of the police and our regard for the criminal justice system is at the very heart of our democratic process and our trust and belief in our community. He accepts that there is no reason, so long as it is not seen as an anti-police measure, why the commission should not appoint an officer who may assist, if necessary, to provide the other thing that we seek here—public confidence.
The concern of the commission is that the police force is diffident about the way in which it approaches the matter. I am genuinely puzzled, as my hon. Friend is. It is a question that I ask my own Front-Bench colleagues, now that I am allowed to call them that again. They are often too hung-up on the concept of self-regulation. We saw that right through the 1980s. You may think that "self-regulation" is inappropriate in terms of a commission and the police, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I use it in the sense of inquiry by a body into itself.
In recent months, I have seen how diffident right hon. and hon. Members are about looking into the affairs of one another. I understand that. If I am sitting next to a colleague whom I respect, enjoy being with and have sympathy for, I am perhaps much more diffident about coming to an appropriate conclusion. The House will know that I am a member of Lloyd's. I do not want to talk about criminal organisations and fraud within the context of the new clause. I am sure that the Opposition will dispose of those important matters when they ascend to office, as their plans suggest, under the new guise of new Labour, but there we are.
Why is there an objection to placing in the hands of the commission a discretion to appoint an investigating officer, if necessary? That is all that it is about. What is the philosophical bar to that? It seems to me that the gains to be achieved are profound. If we were starting from scratch, if we had no history in these matters and we were setting up a commission, would we deny it that power? I

rather suspect that we would not. Therefore, to put the burden back on institutions and say that institutions such as Lloyd's and the House of Commons should regulate themselves gives rise to understandable diffidence.
To allay any scintilla of public anxiety about that, the Government should accept the new clause—I see no reason why they should not. After all, it is reasonably drawn. It does not mandate the commission to appoint an outside investigating officer but states clearly that
The Commission may … or … may require".
It uses the conditional tense and does not place an insistent mandate on the commission. The admirable members of the commission whom the Home Office is to appoint will bear in mind their responsibilities solemnly in this matter because they will want to achieve results that give public confidence to our criminal justice system. In that regard, I support the new clause. Incidentally, I also welcome Government amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36.
I simply argue, as the new clause does, for the reaffirmation of our belief in our procedures. This is not an anti-police measure. It strengthens the Bill and the Government should consider the possibility of acceding to the new clause, if not here then in the House of Lords.

Mr. Jack Straw: We have just heard six speeches in favour of the new clause from hon. Members representing four of the country's political parties, one of which is the governing Conservative party. All six speeches have been in favour of the new clause; not one has been against it. Given the substantial consensus in favour of the Bill as a whole, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about his reaction to the proposal and, even at this stage, will not advise his hon. Friends to vote against the new clause.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the successful launch of the criminal cases review commission depends partly on the power proposed in the new clause. I intend to use the next few minutes to try to persuade the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to cast his vote with us in the event of a Division. He has stressed that how the commission operates is crucial. It is also crucial that we get the commission's operating arrangements right first time; otherwise, the commission's experience will be as unhappy as that of the Police Complaints Authority.
Like every other hon. Member, I do not for one moment doubt the integrity and assiduity of members of the Police Complaints Authority and those who serve under it. It is a fact of life, however, that the authority and its arrangements have always lagged behind public opinion. They have never quite overcome the suspicion that they are merely part of a self-regulation operation in which, ultimately, the police investigate themselves. They lack public credibility and, as a result, are much less efficient and far more costly than would otherwise be the case because people will not take no for an answer.
I make that point because I know that the Minister of State is concerned about that aspect of the matter. The arrangements are costly in direct terms. They add to the cost of investigations because all those with experience of the Police Complaints Authority may end up sending cases back. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, there is a huge cost to public funds. Public confidence in Police Complaints Authority arrangements is now so lacking that people bypass them altogether and sue the police in the


civil courts. On Second Reading, I gave the figures for the phenomenal increase in the number of civil actions now taken against only a single police authority—the Metropolitan police. Credibility is therefore central to whether the new commission operates effectively and with full public credibility.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) spoke with great eloquence about his experience, 20 years ago, as a member of the criminal Bar in London. I also worked—briefly—at the criminal Bar at the same time. It was a time when public perception about the police was changing. For years before then the police had known that whatever evidence they gave, however much they "verballed up" the defendant or roughed him up in the cells, the chances were that they would be believed in the witness box and the defendant would not. One had to put up with the fact that the people whom one represented, who frequently complained about being verballed up or duffed up, were likely to receive longer sentences if they made such allegations, however justified, when in the witness box.
5 pm
Then there was the historic investigation by The Times into corruption in the Metropolitan police. There was the great determination of Sir Robert Mark, then Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to try to discover what was going on in the Metropolitan police. Bit by bit, it emerged that, far from the Metropolitan police being an unblemished police force, as was the myth, there was endemic corruption in the criminal investigation department of the Metropolitan police, which was a cancer in that police force. Many people in that authority knew about it, including people at the top of the Metropolitan police, but no one did anything about it. If anyone said anything about it, they were accused of being anti-police; how dare people suggest that the police in London and elsewhere might be corrupt? We now know, more or less, the truth about that period. That culture developed inside the Metropolitan police, as it did in some other police forces, not because those people were any more venal than people are today, but because there were insufficient arrangements for supervising the enormous power that those police officers had. No one was there to check on them.
Gradually, the system of the Police Complaints Authority grew up. As I have said, however, it lagged behind public opinion and the needs of justice. As a consequence of the very few—let us be sure about that—but none the less appalling cases of malpractice by the police, a head of steam built up for a wholly independent organisation to investigate miscarriages of justice.
The old justification for police corruption—for verballing up the type of petty criminal whom I used to represent in the magistrates courts and the Crown courts—was the idea of "noble cause" corruption, on which the current Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, recently reflected. The police would say, "Your client is guilty of something. He is a well-known crook. He may not be guilty of the specific crime with which he is charged, but he is guilty of a series of crimes." That was the justification.
On the whole, the police did not pick up innocent people in the street; they picked up people whom they knew, whom they had crossed in some way or other. It was their way of maintaining a semblance of law and

order. Occasionally, however, the power to fix the evidence went to their heads and, as a result of enormous pressure from outside, wholly innocent people ended up being convicted of serious crimes—principally as a result of the lack of supervision of police investigations at the police stations.
I suspect that the Minister of State is about to parrot a brief explaining why a case which has been strongly made on both sides of the House should not be conceded. For a great many years, even after some of those miscarriages of justice were brought to light, the response of successive Home Office Ministers to proposals for an independent commission was that it was not needed. We were told that the existing arrangements were entirely satisfactory. That was the response to proposals in the 1960s for such a commission and again to the carefully worked out proposals of Liberty and the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee in the 1980s.
Finally, that intellectual, political and, I guess, emotional log jam has been broken and the Royal Commission on criminal justice has recommended the establishment of a criminal cases review commission. Nevertheless, despite all the evidence of police corruption and miscarriages of justice and the palpable evidence of the way in which those serious blemishes have greatly damaged the reputation of the police in the eyes of the law-abiding public, Ministers continue to resist the proposition that the commission's investigations should be conducted wholly independently of the police in circumstances where the commission deems it appropriate.
I find that especially odd in the light of the opinions expressed by the police themselves when they responded to the consultative document in May 1994. All the police officers whom I meet these days, from the senior ranks to the most junior, are even more worried than Members of the House about the reputation of the police. They resent and detest their inheritance. Senior and junior officers in the Metropolitan police clearly hate the fact that 20 or 30 years ago many senior officers connived at corruption and, as the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said, systematically led innocent officers down the path of corruption. Many senior officers with whom I speak say that of course they recognise the overwhelming need to ensure that justice is seen to be done in terms of the criminal cases review commission and I should be astonished if that opinion had not also been expressed to the Minister of State.
Inevitably, the Association of Chief Police Officers is in a difficult position. It is bound to have to co-operate with any Government of the day and it does not want to become involved in any partisan argument. Nevertheless, I will detain hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Minister for a moment to quote what ACPO said in its detailed letter of 9 May 1994 to Mr. Potts of C3 division in response to the discussion paper. Commenting on paragraphs 54 to 65, on the subject of investigations, the writer—I cannot read the signature, so I cannot say who it was, but I am happy to pass a copy of the letter to the Minister—said:
I have already laid out, in my letter of 4th March 1994, my considerable concerns about the resources involved in this aspect of the proposed arrangements. I have also expressed my concern about


the way in which the options for investigation are laid out in the consultation paper: without costings and with a clear bias in favour of the Police Complaints Authority model.
In their responses to me, Forces have raised a number of points in relation to this section of the paper. In summary these were:—
The process of investigation will inevitably call for substantial skills from the Investigation Teams. If the
new commission
were to follow the PCA model then in selecting and approving the Senior Investigator and team the
commission
would be bound to be seeking officers with both experience and training. Such Officers are also, inevitably, difficult to replace within force. The effect can be substantial in both small and large forces …
With the small number of large forces, there is an inevitable tendency for them all to be undertaking one or more enquiry at a time.
This is a very important argument indeed:
This may also mean, as has recently been the case with West Midlands and West Yorkshire, that they are, simultaneously, investigating each other. However well the enquiry is carried out, this is not, I suggest, likely to enhance the credibility of the result.
The Minister is asking the House to accept that even in the most serious and controversial cases one can end up with a position whereby West Midlands is investigating West Yorkshire and West Yorkshire is investigating West Midlands.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister—I will, of course, answer what he has to say—believe that that will be a satisfactory outcome? ACPO certainly does not.

Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is up to the commission? In clause 18(4)(b), the commission has the power to impose
a requirement to appoint a person serving in such other police force as the chief officer thinks fit
and the powers that we have given there to the commission are such that the commission could control which force investigates which other force. If the commission wished to have that reciprocal investigation, it could do so, but if it would be as unacceptable as the hon. Gentleman suggests the commission would have the power to do otherwise.

Mr. Straw: The letter makes the point elsewhere that in many cases the commission may not have the option of choosing an alternative force. Under the current arrangements, the West Midlands police force may investigate the West Yorkshire force and vice versa because only the larger forces have the resources available to conduct larger investigations. An option that is not available to the commission under the Minister's scheme, but which would be available under our scheme, is the opportunity to appoint its own investigating officers. That point is central to our argument.

Mr. Mullin: I once asked the deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary about the Judith Ward case and he replied, "Oh, she was framed"—that was the word that he used—"by the West Yorkshire police." He then added, "The irony is that they then send the West Yorkshire police over here to investigate us when it is alleged that we have done something wrong." Is that not a good illustration of the problem?

Mr. Straw: It certainly is. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has also pointed out the very curious and overly elaborate arrangement in clause 18(4)(a), whereby a chief officer may be required to
appoint a person serving in such other police force as the chief officer thinks fit".
People who wish to see a commission that is wholly independent of the police and who want to believe the Minister when he says that investigations will be conducted in a manner that is wholly independent of the force which conducted the original investigation will be troubled when they read clause 18. It does not appear that justice will be done under the elaborately constructed scheme outlined in clause 18.
I shall continue by quoting from the letter that ACPO sent to the Home Office just under a year ago. Paragraph 3 states:
The PCA model has a number of further drawbacks. There is no accountability on the Authority for the resources used in the investigation. The entire cost of the enquiry falls upon the force being investigated. Such costs can be enormous—West Midlands have quoted the figures of £1.5 million for the Birmingham Six Investigation and a still larger sum for the Serious Crime Squad enquiry by West Yorkshire. Is it really right that the force against whom an allegation is made has to support the cost of the investigation? Equally, is it really right that the Authority"—
now the commission—
carrying out the investigation has no accountability for the cost?
The Minister has complained—I believe that his charge is unsubstantiated—about the cost of our proposals. It is very interesting that 11 months ago ACPO complained strenuously about the lack of costings for the Home Office's proposed model. The letter continues:
A number of forces raised objections to the model of investigation based on seconded officers. This, as is the case with the PCA model, has a substantial impact on the pool of experienced officers in forces. Again, this was a particular concern of a number of smaller forces".
The letter goes on to make a very important point, given the current climate in the police force. It states:
There is a further concern that developments in streamlining management in the Service will make both the PCA model and a seconded model extremely onerous for forces, whether they be large or small. Police Forces have already reduced the number of senior and middle managers significantly in recent years. Further substantial reductions in the numbers of officers at Chief Inspector and Superintendent rank are likely as forces seek to reduce costs and maximise the resource in front line policing. This must mean that the pool of officers available for either PCA style appointment as an investigating officer or secondment to a central body will reduce.
Overall this section in the paper seems to be based on the assumption that all investigation by the CCRA will be similar and should be handled the same way. Indeed, at paragraph 62, it is suggested that it would be difficult to explain to the applicant 'why their case had been handled in one way rather than another'. I am not convinced that this is a valid argument. After all, in discussing the procedures for summary cases, the paper has already set out a different system for such cases. Is it really valid to suggest that all indictable cases are similar and must be investigated the same way?
Of course, that is not the case.
The writer goes on to suggest that the cases should be graded according to their complexity, the level of independence necessary from the original police investigation, and the type of allegation. He goes on to say:
Under such circumstances, it should be possible to develop a model for investigations which relies on a combination of the options:—



(i) A Central Unit, independent of Police Forces, which would be capable of carrying out, or, at the very least, managing the more complex and controversial investigations.
(ii) The use of a seconded team of Police Officers from a different Force to investigate some cases, notably where Police criminal conduct or misconduct is alleged and the PCA are involved.
(iii) Using the same Force to assist the investigation, particularly where the applicant is satisfied that the Police involvement in the case does not form part of his grounds for review.
(iv) Using other non-Police investigators where Police skills or powers are not required, particularly where the substance of the case involved legal procedures".

That seems to me, and to everyone who has read it, to be a very robust intellectual categorisation of the sorts of cases that the commission is likely to deal with and the way in which they should be processed.
5.15 pm
I do not wish to wreck his fine political career, but I hope that my hon. Friend—with a small "f"—the Member for Upper Bann will be convinced by the ACPO analysis of the case in support of our new clause 1. The new clause would give legislative force to ACPO's proposal for
A Central Unit, independent of Police Forces, which would be capable of carrying out, or, at the very least, managing the more complex and controversial investigations.
I did not serve on the Standing Committee which examined the Bill, but I have read very carefully what the Minister said in dismissing our proposals for empowering the commission to appoint an independent and central unit of officers. So far as I can see, he did not advance any arguments of principle against it, but merely said that there would be great difficulties establishing the right size for an in-house team—either it would be overburdened with work or it would have no work at all.
That is true of any police activity up to a point. For large parts of any day in a year many police officers will be doing nothing in particular because they are patrolling in a reactive sense. The police force deals with situations of uncertainty. I found the Minister's argument wholly unconvincing because he knows—and the commission will find it out very quickly—that a huge volume of cases will come before the commission. As soon as the commission is established, those who do not believe that they have been dealt with properly under the current procedures will also make applications. Grading those cases will prove a substantial administrative challenge. From that large number of cases—most of which, numerically, will be unmeritorious—there will be a core that will require investigation. I have no doubt that, with sensible management, that would provide sufficient work for the kind of core of officers, independent of police forces, that we and the Association of Chief Police Officers have in mind.
I turn to the issue of where those people would come from and how they would be trained. As many senior police officers accept privately, and as is hinted at in the letter from ACPO, they will come from the vast pool of retired police officers. Many senior and middle-ranking police officers are being squeezed out of the force as a result of the Sheehy reforms and other changes introduced by the Government. Those officers have considerable experience; they are not duds and they could form a core of investigating officers.
In supporting the proposal for a core investigating team, Justice cites a study conducted by Coopers and Lybrand. Coopers and Lybrand pointed out the merits of having a

dedicated core of officers. The Minister, if I read him right, seemed to suggest at column 91 in Standing Committee B on 28 March that it was a bad thing to have a private police force. He dismissed it as though it were some casual scheme. I hope that he does not do that this evening, given the opinion that has been expressed from all parts of the House.
In dismissing the proposal for what he described as a private police force, the Minister referred to the need for in-house training. Coopers and Lybrand compared the development of a core of investigating officers working directly with the commission with that of auditors, who have a similar role and gradually build up experience and expertise from which they can train others. As Coopers and Lybrand pointed out, there is no reason why that could not apply to the team of investigators.
My last point relates to costs, on which the Minister's case, which is always defective, is least convincing. In Committee, the Minister claimed in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that there would be substantial cost as a result of our proposals. When my hon. Friend asked him the straightforward question:
What is the Minister's estimate of the increase in cost?
the reply was:
I have had no estimate of the increase in cost. We have not calculated the number of officers that a hypothetical in-house team would need."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 March 1995; c. 91.]
That confirmed the suspicion of the writer of the letter from ACPO that Ministers and officials of the Home Office decided to accept only one option—the Police Complaints Authority model—and not to consider properly any other option. Properly established, the model that we are proposing, with a core of dedicated investigators independent of the police, and in many cases drawn from the police, is bound to be more efficient and less costly than the PCA arrangements that the Minister is proposing, which will involve both the direct additional costs and the indirect costs to which I have referred.
It is of crucial importance that we get the arrangements right and that justice for those who have suffered the most serious injustices—miscarriages of justice—is not only done, but seen to be done. That can happen only if powers reside centrally in the commission to establish independent investigations wholly separate from the police. That is the purpose of new clause 1. It is supported by every Member who has spoken in the House so far and by most observers outside the House. I urge the House to accept it.

Mr. Maclean: We have had an interesting debate with worthwhile contributions from all those who have spoken. One of the most telling remarks was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who said that the crucial issue concerned the powers of the commission and how it chose to use them. I agree that the powers of the commission to investigate possible miscarriages of justice would be crucial to the success of its work. Those powers must be sufficient to give people confidence in the commission's effectiveness.
The Government have given a great deal of thought to the matter in the past few months and since our discussions in Committee. I still believe that the arrangements set out in the Bill, with the amendments that we are proposing tonight, are the most effective means of


ensuring that the commission will have access to the wealth of knowledge and expertise within police forces. We also believe that they represent the most cost-effective means of investigating possible miscarriages of justice in future. However, the case does not rest on cost grounds alone and the methodology set out in the Bill will ensure that the commission has all the powers that it needs to investigate thoroughly alleged miscarriages of justice.
As I listened to speeches from all parts of the House relating incidents of past and alleged miscarriages of justice, it occurred to me that hon. Members on both sides may have missed the point that the commission will have tremendous powers. Hon. Members seemed to be under the misapprehension that all that would happen in future is that someone would come along with a terrible miscarriage of justice and we would say to a police force, "Off you go and investigate it. You are solely in charge. There are no time constraints on you and no one is supervising you. You carry out the whole investigation. You are totally in charge and we will have your report at the end and reach a conclusion."
My colleagues will obviously realise that I exaggerate slightly—nevertheless, I got the distinct feeling that not enough attention was paid by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friends to the severe and strong powers that the commission will have, and that are provided in the Bill, to take charge and control an investigation. The police will not be solely in charge of doing what they like at any pace they like, because the commission will be in charge of that.
Let us recap briefly the powers that the commission will have. The Bill gives the commission the power to require the appointment of an investigating officer by a police force or another public body to carry out any inquiries that it considers necessary. The powers regarding such inquiries are extensive. The commission will have the power to approve the choice of the investigating officers, to require that another person be selected and appointed if it is not satisfied with the first person chosen, and to insist on the appointment of investigating officers from a force or public body other than the force or other public body which originally investigated the case.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am not sure that the Minister has understood the limitations on the powers. He quoted clause 18(4)(a) in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and suggested that it would ensure that forces would not mutually investigate each other, but clause 18(4)(b) does not give the commission the power to break the arrangement whereby the West Midlands force investigates the North Yorkshire force, and North Yorkshire investigates West Midlands. The Minister is wrong. The Bill empowers the commission only to get an outside officer to investigate. It is then up to the chief officer to choose the other force.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, that is correct in that part of the clause, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 18(6) which states:

The Commission may direct that an appointment under this section shall not be made unless they have given notice that they approve of the person whom it is proposed to appoint.
Under clause 19, the commission has powers to supervise the work of the investigating officer and, indeed, to dispose of the services of that investigating officer. I suggest to hon. Members that the commission's powers are very extensive indeed.

Mr. Beith: It is difficult to understand why such a tight restriction has been used. In the circumstances that the Minister described, if, having been told that the chief constable had decided to appoint another officer from that chief constable's choice of another force, the commission said, "We are not having him either as we think that it should be a different force altogether," under the Bill the chief constable can say, "No. You can have another officer from the force I choose, but you will not have an officer from a different force."

Mr. Maclean: Theoretically, that is possible, but the Opposition are working on the assumption that chief constables and the commission will be constantly at loggerheads over the selection of officers. If the commission is unhappy with that appointment, it will still have the power to dispose of that officer as well. We are getting into rather fanciful country here, with the idea that chief constables will constantly try to appoint people who are totally unsuitable in the view of the commission.

Mr. Trimble: I can understand the Minister's irritation; we are almost getting down to an argument more appropriate for Standing Committee. I ask him to take the point away and consider it, possibly for amendment in another place at another time. The interpretation of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is correct. I take the point about clause 18(6), but I do not think it can be used in the way in which the Minister suggested. I do not know why clauses 18 and 19 have been drafted in such a cumbersome manner, but they are not appropriate to achieve the Minister's objective. His objective is right, but the drafting is not as happy as it could be.

Mr. Maclean: I am always happy to take drafting advice from the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he agrees with the Government's intention, and am grateful to him for improving the drafting of other parts of the Bill and of some Government amendments, for which he must take some credit.

Mr. Straw: The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was theoretically right. The Minister was therefore making the huge admission that my hon. Friend was legally right when he said that the commission would not have unfettered discretion as to which force to appoint. If the Minister continues to make such poor arguments, he will face difficulties in the other place. Would it not be a good idea for him to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and reconsider the matter?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. We cannot consider one part of the Bill in isolation. I told the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that his interpretation of clause 18(4)(b) was


correct, but the Bill does not stop there. Clauses 18(6) and 19 give further information on the powers available to the commission. Both clauses have checks and balances, but generally they give the commission extensive powers to control and direct investigations that have not been available before.
Hon. Members talk as if the commission would not exist and police officers would have complete carte blanche in undertaking their investigations—that they could make them tardily and without control. The supervision of the investigation can be as close as the members of the commission in charge of the case think fit. In addition, the commission may take any other steps that it thinks appropriate to investigate its case load.
The Bill's powers are far reaching and will enable the commission to ensure that investigations are effective, thorough and independent. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made a powerful plea for a district attorney-type figure charged with the overall investigation and oversight of a case. My hon. Friend had to leave to attend a Home Affairs Select Committee, but before he departed, I informed him that we have the district attorney-type concept he seeks. The commission is the DA, with the powers in clause 19 to direct, supervise and take charge. In using its district attorney powers—I do not like that term but as my hon. Friend used it, I shall stick with it—I do not see any sense in the commission appointing another outside person to serve as yet another district attorney.
The Bill makes it clear that the members of the commission will be in charge of any investigations undertaken by police officers acting on its behalf. If the commission is not satisfied with the way that those investigations are proceeding, it can require further inquiries to be made, and the commission will be able to insist on the replacement of any investigating officer by another, if it thinks that necessary.
New clauses 1 and 2 would enable the commission to draw on in-house investigators or on those whom it has contracted in, as well as on investigating officers appointed at its request by the appropriate chief constable. They would, in effect, give the commission power to appoint an in-house investigations unit to make inquiries. I listened carefully today, as in Committee, to the arguments, but I am not convinced that creating an in-house investigative capacity would be helpful or necessary. It would add significantly to the commission's costs and would not be an efficient use of resources.
Aside from the difficulties, which we have discussed before, of establishing the appropriate size of an in-house team, there would be the practical difficulties in determining which cases merited internal investigation and which external. Even more importantly, any investigators who were contracted in, or any commission staff appointed to investigate in the way apparently envisaged, would need to be able to exercise police powers. They would have to be made accountable for the exercise of those powers and be subject to appropriate disciplinary arrangements with regard to their operational duties. Special arrangements would also be needed to give them access to the training opportunities available for all serving police officers, to keep them up to date with police practice. The Government considered those genuine practical difficulties and are not convinced that would be a sensible approach.
New clause 2 gives the commission the responsibility for ensuring that an investigating officer is properly qualified and independent, and it emphasises the responsibility of the officer in question to the commission. We believe that those provisions are unnecessary. Of course the commission will be looking for an officer who has the skills necessary to undertake the work that the commission requires—it would be extraordinary if it agreed the appointment of an officer not having the necessary skills—and the commission does not need prompting from the statute.
The Bill enables the commission to approve or disapprove the choice of investigating officer, and if the conduct of the investigation he undertakes is in any way unsatisfactory, the commission can require that he be replaced. The officer is appointed to assist the commission, which makes it clear that the commission is in charge. It is not a case of bobbies doing their own thing without anyone directly supervising them. New clause 2 does not add anything to the commission's powers.
The Bill provides the commission with all the powers that it needs to do its work thoroughly and effectively. The proposed new clauses would not increase the commission's effectiveness. They would complicate its procedures, introduce practical difficulties and add to its costs.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) quoted the original submission of the Association of Chief Police Officers to the consultation paper, but things have moved on since then. ACPO now fully supports the model in the Bill, and that was confirmed as recently as last week by the association spokesman in charge. It was slightly disingenuous of the hon. Member to quote a submission of a year ago without giving up-to-date information.
I am used to giving credit to the hon. Member for Upper Bann. In Committee, he made the telling point that the police should be seen to root out cases of corruption. Much of today's discussion was based on cases of corruption in the 1970s or 1980s, before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the close supervision to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred. All the police officers whom I meet these days are dedicated to rooting out corruption wherever they find it. They are incensed when colleagues misbehave because they get it in the neck from media attacks, which tarnish their good reputation.

Mr. Mullin: I cited two contemporary cases. In the Brian Parsons case, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall is resolutely fighting to keep the investigation in-house, and the Carl Bridgewater case is the subject of an eighth police investigation. The Minister cannot claim that those are matters of history.

Mr. Maclean: Nor can the hon. Gentleman say that they are matters of police corruption. At this point, I am talking about police corruption and the police these days being in the forefront of wishing to root it out because corruption tarnishes their name. The hon. Gentleman refers to two alleged cases of a miscarriage of justice. I saw the press release issued by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. I understand perfectly why he would issue a press release on trailers for a programme when the film makers did not, in accordance with their original promise, extend to the chief constable the courtesy of seeing their so-called evidence before screening the programme. The chief constable is right to


be indignant. His report of 1,800 pages has been submitted to the Home Office and will be meticulously studied. We will not make judgments based on trailers screened last week and a programme to be broadcast tonight.
Most horrific cases of alleged miscarriage of justice related to activities in the 1970s and 1980s, before PACE and the rigid controls that exist now. When one considers the pressures under which police forces operate today, it is miraculous that out of a total force of 126,000 men and women, there is so little corruption in our police service. We have one of the most incorrupt police forces in the world. One has only to read foreign news stories—even then with a pinch of salt—to know what so-called police forces in some other countries are like. In any one year, the Home Office gets requests from at least 50 countries for British police to come and lend their expertise—often because those countries cannot trust their own police.
Of course there are cases of police corruption in this country. I think it terribly important that police officers have the duty to root out corruption in their midst and be seen as the ones who are destroying it. That is another telling reason why we want police officers, under the commission's powers of direction, to take charge of these investigations and to root out corruption.
Finally, I should just like to mention the Government amendments taken with this group. I sense that the mood of the House requires that we move on to a vote, however, so I shall not run through the amendments—except to say that I again give some credit to the hon. Member for Upper Bann for drawing certain matters to our attention. In short, I commend the amendments to the House; but I am not convinced by new clauses 1 and 2, and I recommend that my hon. Friends vote against them if they are pushed to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 267.

Division No. 136]
[5.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Austin-Walker, John
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair





Davidson, Ian
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McGrady, Eddie


Donohoe, Brian H
McKelvey, William


Dowd, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McMaster, Gordon


Enright, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maddock, Diana


Fatchett, Derek
Maginnis, Ken


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fraser, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fyfe, Maria
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Galbraith, Sam
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Milbum, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gordon, Mildred
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grant Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mowlam, Marjorie


Henderson, Doug
Mudie, George


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Murphy, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hodge, Margaret
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Simpson, Alan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)






Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vaz, Keith


Snape, Peter
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Soley, Clive
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Spearing, Nigel
Walley, Joan


Spellar, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watson, Mike


Stevenson, George
Welsh, Andrew


Stott, Roger
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David



Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Dr Tony


Timms, Stephen
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trimble, David
Mrs. Barbara Roche and


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Stephen Byers.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Amess, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Beresford, Sir Paul
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Sir Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butcher, John
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hawksley, Warren





Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow West)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr. Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Dr. Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taytor, John M (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Sir Roger
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Walden, George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Ward, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Whittingdale, John


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wiggin, Sir Jerry






Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Wood, Timothy
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

THE COMMISSION: HER MAJESTY'S PREROGATIVE OF MERCY

'. In the exercise of any of its functions, the Commission may refer a matter to the Secretary of State for his consideration of whether to recommend the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 31.

Mr. Michael: The new clause and the amendment deal with the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in respect of cases that might come to the commission for consideration. The problem with the Bill as drafted is that the reference in clause 15 is extremely limited. Indeed, the notes on clauses provided by the Government make it clear just how limited it is. They state that the clause is intended to
enable the Secretary of State to take account of the Commission's consideration of a matter where the Secretary of State has been petitioned to recommend exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in relation to a conviction … In this way the role of the Commission in considering alleged wrongful conviction cases should not be undermined by petitions to the Secretary of State.
Therefore, the intention clearly is to ensure that there is no alternative to the commission for dealing with such matters.
There may be circumstances in which the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy is the straightforward and simple way of dealing fairly with a specific case. That is acknowledged by the Bill itself, which enables the Home Secretary to ask the commission to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise the royal prerogative. That is helpful. The amendment to require the commission to state its reasons for any such recommendation is also sensible. But what is the situation when the commission is considering a straightforward claim of miscarriage? It is not so clear.
6 pm
As the Bill stands, the commission can consider reference to the Court of Appeal but not decide on the alternative course of recommending the exercise of the royal prerogative. Surely that anomaly could be circumvented by common sense—for example, the commission telling the applicant, "Why don't you appeal to the Home Secretary, and then he can ask us to look at it and make a recommendation to him?" Or it could be left to cause bureaucratic delay and frustration, albeit in a small number of cases.
Surely it is better to accept new clause 6, which puts clearly on the face of the Bill the power for the commission, in appropriate cases, to say, "We have had a look at this case. It does not seem to be one in which

reference to the Court of Appeal is appropriate, but the royal prerogative of mercy does seem appropriate. Let us simply make that recommendation to the Home Secretary." That will provide a sensible safety valve. How often it is used would depend on the assessment that is made by the commission of the cases it considers—cases can reach it through a wide range of means—but it would mean that common sense and simplicity is introduced in this part of the Bill.
Ministers have at various times pointed out that the Law Commission is preparing a report on hearsay evidence, which is likely to contain recommendations for reform. Pending that, it proposes that cases that rest on hearsay should be dealt with by the use of the royal prerogative of mercy as an alternative to the Court of Appeal. The exercise of the prerogative as an alternative is something that Ministers accept. It is a fairly simple suggestion.
The new clause would therefore give the commission the power, when appropriate, to refer cases that it has investigated to the Secretary of State rather than to the Court of Appeal. That would include cases that rest heavily on evidence that is inadmissible in court, as well as findings of exceptional compassionate circumstances that might justify the use of the prerogative on those grounds alone.
As the Bill stands, the commission would be entirely within the requirements of the Act—as it will be by the time it is enacted—to say, "It is not a matter for us." It seems silly, when the commission will have looked at the circumstances in a variety of cases, not to say simply and explicitly on the face of the Bill that the commission will have the power to make reference to the Secretary of State, with a recommendation where appropriate. If the Secretary of State considers that the case raises matters that should properly be dealt with by the court, he will be able to return the case to the commission, with his views.
The new clause simplifies matters and would avoid the creation of an anomaly. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

The Party Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I certainly understand the concern that has prompted the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We were all set to offer to consider the matter further when it appeared on the list in Committee. In the event, it was not selected, and no opportunity arose for the Government to express their views and intentions in that area.
As hon. Members know, the Government believe that the proper place for wrongful convictions or sentences to be corrected is in the courts; hence the provisions of the Bill that provide for the commission to investigate and, where appropriate, refer to the courts possible miscarriages of justice. But in working out those provisions, we looked closely at whether the royal prerogative of mercy should continue to be available.
We came to the conclusion, as did the royal commission, that, as there may be cases, albeit exceptionally, of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for example, where there is compelling new material that is inadmissible—the royal prerogative should continue to be available.
The Government have always intended that, where the commission finds such a case, it should be able to refer it to the Secretary of State for him to consider whether to recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative. We initially took the view that it was open to the commission to do that under the Bill as drafted, but, on reflection and further to our discussions in Committee, we believe that we can make that rather clearer on the face of the Bill. We believe that the wording of amendment No. 31 is clearer, and preferable to new clause 6. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Gentleman will not press his new clause, but will accept amendment No. 31 in due course.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, I should like to probe a little further the difference between the result of the new clause and that of amendment No. 31.
New clause 6 makes it absolutely explicit that, in consideration of any matter before it, the commission could conclude that it wished to make a recommendation to the Home Secretary.
Amendment No. 31, to which the Minister referred, is not quite so clear, because it inserts, at the end of line 38, the words
'(2) Where in any case the Commission are of the opinion that the Secretary of State should consider whether to recommend the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy in relation to the case they shall give him the reasons for their opinion.'.
I am open to correction by the Minister, but it seems to me that the amendment therefore refers to the type of case that is dealt with in clause 15. In other words, it gives the commission the discretion to recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative in cases where the Home Secretary has made reference to the commission. New clause 6 goes slightly wider than that, and I believe that it fits what the Minister has suggested. If I understood him correctly, there is no difference between us on the outcome that would be achieved as a result of this short debate.
Am I correct in saying that amendment No. 31 would extend the powers of the commission only in relation to cases that have been referred to the commission by the Home Secretary, not the generality of the commission's work? I see an urgent necessity to speak slowly for a moment or two, but that seems to be the way in which the amendment is phrased. It is in effect an addendum to clause 15 as it currently stands, and therefore can apply only to cases that have been referred to the commission by the Home Secretary, which are dealt with by clause 15. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that position now that he is in a position to do so.

Mr. Baker: I can relieve the hon. Gentleman of his agony. Amendment No. 31 does say, "Where in any case", and subsection (2), as it will be, will be quite separate from subsection (1). I appreciate why he asked the question, but I can confirm that his worries are groundless.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. If that is so, and the amendment means that the extended power of the commission applies not only to cases referred to the commission by the Home Secretary but to any case that the commission considers, I am happy indeed to withdraw the new clause and to support

amendment No. 31. I am grateful to the Minister for responding constructively in this short debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

PROVISION FOR A COMMISSION IN SCOTLAND

'.(1) The Secretary of State shall bring forward within one year of the passing of this Act an order making provisions in respect of Scotland similar to those in Part II of this Act.

(2) No order under subsection (1) above shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 42, in clause 31, page 20, line 17, leave out '24' and insert '15'.

Mr. McFall: This is a small but important new clause for the criminal justice system in Scotland. We find ourselves in an anomalous position with regard to England and Wales. The Bill makes provision in England and Wales for a commission to examine miscarriages of justice, but there is no such provision for Scotland.
In Scotland, there is a real and growing disquiet about the Scottish Appeal Court's ability or willingness to consider possible miscarriages of justice. Lawyers are becoming more and more aware of how difficult it is to get any case re-examined in Scotland.
There is a growing feeling that changes are needed if justice is to be done. A few months ago, the Scottish Office produced a consultation paper on the subject. It was clearly written by civil servants who understand the problem but, alas, there has been no action on it.
If one talks to the legal fraternity in Scotland, judges and lawyers, one finds that all agree that it is a myth that the miscarriages of justice recently discovered in the past few years in England and Wales are unlikely to happen in Scotland because of the superior legal system there. The truth is that, in Scotland, we are less likely to face up to the possibility that they may exist.
At the moment, in Scottish gaols, a number of prisoners are loudly and persistently proclaiming their innocence. Their cases have been taken up by their respective Members of Parliament. The case of George Beattie has been taken up by his Member of Parliament. There are also the cases of Raymond Gilmour from Paisley, and the ice cream wars prisoners, Thomas Campbell and Joseph Steel. The former is now on a hunger strike. He recently broke his hunger strike, but, while being transferred from hospital back to prison, he stated that he would be going back on hunger strike. Another two prisoners are Peter Hurtt and Alex Hall.
There is a real danger in that situation. Pressure is building up, and fuelling the argument for some kind of extra-legal body to deal with miscarriages of justice. We do not want that in Scotland. We want parity of esteem. We want the same conditions to apply in Scotland as apply in England and Wales. Therefore, there should be immediate legislation giving the Scottish Appeal Court all the powers it needs to deal with possible miscarriages of


justice—increased powers to review evidence, to examine witnesses, to hear evidence of someone else's confession and to reconsider a jury's decision when the interests of justice demand.
We have had four consultation papers during the past year or so in Scotland telling us what to expect, but, alas, no action has been taken. In Committee on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill we have debated similar provisions, but again, the Government are not forthcoming.
At the moment in Scotland, a committee composed of the great and good in the Scottish legal establishment is being set up to consider the miscarriages of justice issue. No doubt its views will be well worth hearing, but it must not be allowed to disguise the reality. Change is needed now. One has to be forgiven for taking the cynical view that that committee has been set up by the Government in order to avoid change.
The committee is under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Stuart Sutherland of Edinburgh university. But it will not report until the summer of 1996, and, by the time the Government consider its report and give their view, there will be a general election.
England and Wales will have a criminal appeal body to which miscarriages of justice can be referred, yet for at least five years, Scotland will not have a similar body. That brings the Scottish criminal justice system into disrepute. It lowers the esteem of the Scottish criminal justice system, and I do not see why that should be allowed to happen.
I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to report publicly in June or July this year on the work of that committee, which has now been sitting for six months, but no cognisance has been taken of that request. By allowing Scotland to be out of step with England and Wales, a disservice is being done to the Scottish criminal justice system.
The case for a body to examine miscarriages of justice in Scotland has been put not only by the laity, by individuals contacting Members of Parliament, but by those in legal circles. Only about a year ago, a paper was delivered by the second most important judge in Scotland, Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk. He said in his paper that the creation of an independent tribunal would involve legal and constitutional difficulties, but we needed to tackle the problem quickly. He said:
It thus seems that such a new body if brought into being would have an important part to play in remedying miscarriages of justice in the criminal justice system. Indeed unless such a new body is created, there will be some cases where one cannot be confident that means exist within the criminal justice system as presently constituted for remedying miscarriages of justice which may have occurred.
That, coming from the second most important judge in Scotland, is a damning indictment of the Scottish criminal justice system. By their neglect, the Government are delaying the matter until beyond the next election.
6.15 pm
I mentioned the second most important judge in Scotland, but the most important judge, the Lord President, Lord Hope, several weeks ago liberally interpreted the law to allow evidence to be led in an appeal case. Five months later, his fellow judges in

Scotland, the noble Lords McCluskey, Morison, Morton and Cowie, considered his judgment, and said that it was incorrect. They said that the interpretation of the law as Parliament laid down meant strict interpretation. The Lord President was overruled by five subordinate judges.
That tells us that, at the very top in Scottish legal circles, there is a tension and a frustration because cases concerning miscarriages of justice which are pertinent to the Scottish legal system cannot be listened to. The judges do not have the flexibility, because Parliament has put them in a straitjacket in the interpretation of the law.
That situation is obviously inadequate, and it is fraught with great difficulties and dangers when there is such disparity of view between the judges. Lord Ross, commenting on Lord Hope's original decision, said that it was not competent for a judge to modify the language of an Act of Parliament
in order to bring it into accordance with his own views of what is right or reasonable.
Lord Ross continued:
In my opinion, parliament has enacted clear provisions as to the requirements that must be satisfied if a miscarriage of justice is based upon the existence and significance of additional evidence which was not heard at the trial, and the court is bound to give effect to what parliament has said.
The Government are allowing no latitude on the part of those judges—judges who recognise that there is a situation to be remedied but about which they can do nothing. That situation can be remedied instantly by the adoption of the new clause. That would ensure that there was a level playing field between Scotland and England and Wales.
Tonight, I must nail the myth that the Scottish criminal justice system is superior to that in England and Wales—it is not. Common problems affect the justice systems on both sides of the border. They need urgent attention. I bring the position to the attention of Parliament so that they will receive that urgent attention in Scotland, and so that people who have a genuine grievance can have their cases heard in the Appeal Court in Scotland, as will happen in England and Wales.
We owe that not just to those people, but to the public, and to the Scottish criminal justice system. I do not want that system brought into disrepute. That is why the new clause has been tabled, and why I hope that the Government will give it the most serious attention.

Mr. Beith: I was surprised by some of closing remarks of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I thought that he had tabled the new clause in this form to ventilate the issue, and that he had got it very loosely within order so that it could be discussed in the context of the Bill. I did not think that he would seek to enact a clause in this form. Were he to do so, he would be doing what is repugnant to most of us: creating primary Scottish legislation by statutory instrument tacked on to Bills on England and Wales and, in this case, Northern Ireland. That is no way to legislate for Scotland, and no way to legislate on such an important matter.

Mr. McFall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with his comments on primary


legislation, but we have had an add-on, piecemeal approach to Scottish criminal justice, and frustration with that has made me come to the Dispatch Box tonight.

Mr. Beith: Exactly so. That is what I took the hon. Gentleman's original intention to be, but we must not imitate deplorable Government practices in relation to Scottish law. I shall take him at what I thought to be his original intention: to ventilate the issue, and perhaps to add a little urgency to the consideration that has begun on whether a parallel body should exist in Scotland, and, if so, what form it should take.
I understand that the degree of consensus that we have achieved in England about the form that such a body might take by no means exists in Scotland, although there is increasing recognition that a problem needs to be resolved.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone who takes a close interest in law reform, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have no choice in these matters? The Government frequently introduce Scottish legislation that is tacked or welded on to English legislation. I would much prefer that a measure of this sort were debated within the confines of a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, but Opposition Members have no choice in the matter.

Mr. Beith: I should like to debate such a measure in a Scottish Parliament, but that is another story. It would not be satisfactory to carry the new clause, and thereby to ensure that the body in Scotland is created by a statutory instrument that is incapable of amendment although the matter is very complex.
We have had detailed discussions tonight about what the provisions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be, and we found that continuing dissatisfaction exists with the wording of the Bill, even as it stands. We spent some time on the group of amendments before last discussing the interpretation of the arrangements by which an investigating police force is found.
It became clear that the Bill did not do what the Minister appeared to think it was doing. Setting up such a body in Scotland, which has a different background of criminal law, a different judiciary, and different assumptions about the nature of the body required, does not bear thinking about. The issue must be tackled by separate, primary Scottish legislation.
It was reasonable, however, that the hon. Member for Dumbarton brought the matter before the House, simply to give the consultation that has been embarked on in Scotland a greater sense of urgency than appears to exist, distinguished though the individuals who are engaged in that consultation are. To the extent that he is trying to give it a push, I support him in his endeavours.

Dr. Godman: I have some sympathy with the observations of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but how long do we have to wait for that separate Scottish legislation—several years? Will we have to wait while a commission is set up to protect individuals' interests in England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why should we be treated separately? A real problem exists in relation to the House of Commons. I, too, would like a Scottish Parliament dealing

with such matters, but, until that day dawns, we must often deal with these issues by way of English, or predominantly English, legislation.
The Minister knows that. The last time he and I exchanged differing views about law reform was during the debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, some 40 per cent. of which referred to Scotland, partially or exclusively. In these Houses of Parliament, we are engaged in a less than desirable game of leapfrog. That is shown by the measures on child law reform. In some aspects, statutory care provision for children in Scotland was well ahead, by way of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Now, however, we are still debating the Children (Scotland) Bill, whereas south of border, such legislation has been on the books for some five years and more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was right to base his argument on parity of esteem. I am anxious that Scotland maintains its independent legal system and its unique Scots law. However, if reform takes place in Northern Ireland, England and Wales, similar reform should be introduced at the same time for Scotland.
I have a great deal of trust in and respect for our sheriffs and judges, for the legal concept of corroboration, and for our jury system, but mistakes are made, and such a body would enable redress of a grievance to be made quite quickly. I shall not argue therefore that we should wait for separate Scottish legislation by way of, say, a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Such Bills come to the House every three or four years. Why should we wait? Let us have this commission.

Mr. Mullin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a measure of the complacency that has prevailed lately in the Scottish Office that no Minister from the Scottish Office is even present on the Government Benches?

Dr. Godman: Again, that surprises me not. I remind my hon. Friend that I was fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to sit on the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. We had to rely on, admittedly, a Scots-born Minister who has a degree from one of our universities, but who has not practised law in Scotland.

Mr. Mullin: He cannot be all bad.

Dr. Godman: I think he is all bad, but he is a fair-minded adversary. My hon. Friend raises an important point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton suggested, Professor Sutherland's report will not be published until the summer of 1996. Whatever the Minister may say, I should have thought that we would be close to an election in the summer of 1996, if we had not had one in the spring of 1996. When welcome reform is taking place elsewhere in this multinational state of ours, it is essential in terms of maintaining public confidence in the legal system that Scotland should also benefit from that reform.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that, only yesterday, my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland debated that matter in the Committee considering the Bill that was mentioned


by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I shall have something to say about that. That is why my hon. Friend debated it there, rather than here.

Dr. Godman: That is an excuse of sorts.

Mr. McFall: The Minister is correct; the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland debated the matter with me in Committee. However, I am here, while the Under-Secretary of State is not, which shows our desire for the proposal. I put on record the fact that this desire goes across party lines. We were so accommodating to the Minister that I made the offer that Opposition Members would meet Law Officers and Ministers to discuss the issue. Sadly, that offer was rejected, which shows the Government's neglect of the issue and their apparent indifference and apathy.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), apart from his native courtesy, is another fair-minded adversary. He is also an advocate, and he might have been able to point out some of the reasons why he, not only as a Minister but as an advocate, cannot accept the new clause, or has serious reservations about it.
A number of cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred have created considerable unease among many people in Scotland. The respect that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland have for the legal system would be enhanced by the setting up of an independent body.
When I was a member of the local review committee at Edinburgh prison, I frequently interviewed prisoners who claimed that they were innocent of the charges of which they had been convicted in the sheriff courts or in the High Courts in Edinburgh and elsewhere. Some of those prisoners were patently attempting to shoot a line to the interviewer from the local committee. I believe that almost all the prisoners I interviewed with a view to helping to determine whether they should be given release under licence had justly been found guilty of, in some instances, the most horrible crimes.
The Scottish legal system is not superior to the system south of the border; mistakes can be made. Recourse to a commission would provide an acceptable framework for the assessment of judgments that are being challenged on the basis of an individual's innocence.
Despite the fact that we seek to tack the provision on to English legislation, something to which we have become accustomed, the new clause is important and it should obtain cross-party support. If it is right for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it has to be right for Scotland.

Mr. Trimble: We heard at the outset of the debate a powerful speech by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), with which I entirely concur. I understand that he has raised the matter in the form of a new clause simply to debate it.
I am sure that he would not want operating in Scotland the atrocious system of legislation by order which we have to endure in Northern Ireland. I sympathise with him in his frustration at the prospect of having to wait several

years for equivalent legislation in Scotland. We have had to endure such a wait far too often in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of considerable pleasure to me that we have been able to jump Northern Ireland into the text of the Bill, so that the commission will operate there.
I rise to speak not to the new clause but to amendment No. 42, which, as hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recognise, is one that I tabled in Committee. I am glad that Labour Front-Bench Members have tabled the amendment for discussion this evening.
I underline the importance of amendment No. 42. It would make available to the commission supplementary powers with regard to material pertinent to any of its inquiries which happened to be within the Scottish jurisdiction. That is an important point, although it will not arise often. In Committee, the Minister rightly said that there would be few if any cases in which the situation would arise, but he then said—I thought that this was a curious statement—that, if the situation did arise, there would generally be no difficulty in relying on informal co-operation to acquire such material.
If we intend to rely on informal co-operation to acquire documents, why does clause 16 give the commission power to obtain documents? The power to obtain documents should be exercisable wherever documents relevant to an inquiry happened to be. Amendment No. 42 would achieve that aim, and I urge it again on the Minister.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). The reasons for tabling the new clause are clear and were explained fully by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who understands the frustration of Scottish Members when provisions for Scotland are tagged on to legislation that is not Scottish. On this occasion, a provision has been missed out, although there will be benefits not only for England but for the other parts of the United Kingdom. Like other of my hon. Friends who have spoken, I look forward to the day when there is a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom where these matters can be properly discussed.
Over the past few years, including the time before I was elected to the House, I have been involved in the case of Raymond Gilmour, which has attracted considerable media attention because there are at least reasonable doubts about his guilt. Having studied the case, I am convinced that he is innocent. He has now been in gaol for more than a decade for a crime that he probably did not commit. It would be improper to go yet again into all the details of that case; suffice it to say that when the makers of "Trial and Error"—which I am delighted to say is back on our screens tonight and tomorrow night—did detailed research into the case, one of the conclusions, which was very significant, was that although Raymond Gilmour had been found guilty in Scotland, he would not have been found guilty in England. More significantly in terms of the new clause, if his case was being considered as a miscarriage of justice in England, he would have a far better chance of being out of gaol than he has in Scotland.
Someone cannot be any more guilty because the crime was committed in Scotland or because he or she lives in Scotland rather than across the border. I offer no criticism of the Secretary of State for Scotland in terms of the manner in which he has dealt with the case since the


"Trial and Error" programme was shown. One of the anomalies in Scotland is what is considered to be new evidence; this is one of the areas that a Scottish commission would look at. The Secretary of State has accepted a fresh application for the prerogative of mercy when he could have exercised his judgment in another way.
I do not have a legal background and I have been very much assisted in this case by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who is, of course, an eminent Queen's counsel in Scotland and who has studied the case. He has made forceful comments about it in the House.
I believe that the new clause is reasonable and that it is absolutely unreasonable that we in Scotland shall have to wait several years for equivalent legislation. The emotional notion which we sometimes hear propounded, that Scottish justice is superior, is fast becoming diminished. In some respects, Scottish justice may be better, but we must accept that, in other respects, it is worse. One of the respects in which the Scottish legal system is worse is the way in which it deals with miscarriages of justice. The new clause is the sort of approach that the Government should take and they should not drag their heels for the length of time that it seems they shall.

Mr. Mullin: I said a moment ago in an intervention that it is a measure of the complacency in the Scottish Office that there is not a Minister from the Scottish Office present to hear the discussion about this Scottish measure. In my experience, it is very unusual, if not unique, for the House to be discussing a measure and for there not to be a Minister from the appropriate Department who can be bothered to show his face.
I raised this matter in the House as recently as Scottish questions three hours ago and I was extremely dissatisfied with the reply that I received from the Secretary of State. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) quoted a number of distinguished Scottish lawyers as being in favour of this sort of measure, because, in the past, there has been a certain smugness among Scottish lawyers. I had one or two coming up to me when we had trouble with the English legal system saying that, of course, such trouble could not occur in Scotland. I always suspected that it might, even though I do not have a very detailed knowledge of Scottish law.
People in the Scottish legal system have had a long time to adjust to the difficulties that have arisen as a result of miscarriages of justice. They have watched the great disasters that have occurred in the English legal system. They have had one or two lesser instances of their own—the Meehan case, for example—so no one can say that such troubles have not already been proven to happen in Scotland. They have seen a British Home Secretary come to the House of Commons and set up a royal commission. They have watched an English royal commission cover that ground for more then two years and they have seen it report back.
Only now have those in the Scottish legal system got around to setting up some little committee headed by Sir Stuart Sutherland to decide whether there is anything that they should be doing in Scotland. That is really not good enough. The fact that at the moment the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is going through the House—which would

provide a perfectly good opportunity, were the Scots so minded, to rectify that omission—makes it all the more inexcusable.
My interest in this matter arises from the fact that I receive quite a lot of letters from prisoners in Scottish gaols who allege that they are innocent. I have no way of deciding one way or the other, but it is obvious to me that there is a problem in Scotland. I am delighted to hear Scottish Members, who are more qualified than me, say that there is definitely a problem. Following the release of the Birmingham Six, hundreds of people wrote to me from gaols, not only in this country but around the world.
I compiled a dossier of the 40 or 50 most interesting British cases, which I presented to the relevant Secretaries of State. I presented letters to the Home Secretary personally, sent some to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because a few cases arose there, and sent to the Scottish Office details of four or five cases that arose in Scotland.
I received a very courteous response from the Home Secretary. Indeed, over subsequent months I have had detailed responses to most of the cases that I raised. The Minister signs most of them and he knows that officials have gone to a lot of trouble to examine the cases included in my dossier, but I have yet to get anything substantial from the Scottish Office.
My letter to the Scottish office, raising the four cases of Thomas Campbell, Raymond Gilmour, Peter Hurtt and Joseph Steel, was sent on 15 April 1994. I heard only silence, so on 10 June I wrote again, saying:
Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I sent to you on 15 April …
I have no record of a reply and I would be grateful to hear from you on this matter.
On 9 July, I received a letter, which was not very detailed, from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. This year, after hearing nothing further, I wrote again on 29 March, saying:
I would be grateful to know what progress has been made".
I have not received a reply and I think that is pretty appalling. It is about time that the Scottish Office snapped out its complacency.

Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend the inconsistency of the conduct of Scottish Office Ministers? On Friday morning, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), came to the Dispatch Box to give a couple of us Opposition Members an assurance that he would amend the Children (Scotland) Bill in the light of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill promoted by our hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). Why cannot a similar assurance be given with regard to this new clause and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. Mullin: That is a very good question. I think that the short answer is, because there is no Minister here to give that assurance. The Government could not if they wanted to. They are not even aware of the arguments that are taking place.
In addition to the four cases that I raised in my dossier, I have recently talked to people who represent Stuart Gair, a constituent of the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), a Minister in the Home Office. I am not touting for business; I do not want constituents of other hon.
Members coming to me and asking me to help spring them from gaol because they allege that they are there wrongly. I receive hundreds of letters, many of them desperate and some with a covering note saying such things as, "Please find enclosed 300 pages of background reading."
No one is looking forward more than I am to the commission being set up and to it being seen to work. I am even less qualified to assist Scottish prisoners than most. I believe that the Stuart Gair case has been the subject of a documentary on Scottish television, which certainly raised serious problems, but that there has been no sign of progress on that case either.
I do not allege that the Scottish system is any worse than the English system. I make no complaint about the fact that any legal system makes mistakes. What I have always complained about is the absence of a mechanism for putting them right. We are trying to do something about that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. What is good enough for them in one form or another ought to be good enough for Scotland. I hope that some action will be taken shortly.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring forward an order within one year of the passing of the Bill to make provisions for Scotland similar to those in part II of the Bill. That would require either establishing in Scotland a body similar to the commission and with similar powers or the extension of the ambit of the commission to cases tried in the Scottish courts. Such an order would require to be made by statutory instrument and be subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Michael: I should be grateful if, before going any further, the Minister would explain why he is responding to this debate. The new clause has been moved by a shadow Scottish Minister and surely a Scottish Minister should be responding. Neither a Minister from the Home Department nor I should be taking part.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Home Office is responsible for the Bill and, in Committee, he may recall, Home Office Ministers dealt with it. However he may dislike it, that is the position.
I suggest that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right. The new clause is not the way in which to legislate for Scotland. If I were a Scottish Member—it is extremely dangerous for any English man to mention a word on a Scottish subject—I think that I would complain very strongly about such a matter being put forward in this way. Having said that, of course I understand the frustration mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), which has been echoed by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and others in this debate. They want something done and I quite understand that.
I cannot agree that consultation is wrong. The Secretary of State for Scotland issued a discussion paper in February 1994, which was similar to those issued by my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Northern Ireland, seeking views on what the options should be for change. The fact is that the responses to that paper, unlike the papers in the rest of the United Kingdom, revealed no widespread support for change. In the face of such a result, a Government would deserve criticism if they were to forge ahead and try to

impose any solution. One clear message emerged—that there should be further consideration of those difficult questions for Scotland.
As a result, on 10 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the appointment and membership of the Sutherland committee to consider the issues in greater detail. The committee is expected to report next year. Hon. Members will know that a similar amendment was debated only yesterday, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office understand the urgency that some Members feel, although those people must recognise that there are many other views on the matter as well as theirs.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot support the new clause. Were I to do so, that would certainly not be in the interests of Scotland.
I fully appreciate the thinking behind amendment No. 42, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and before introducing the Bill we carefully considered the necessity of legislating to give the commission access to material that might be held by Scottish public bodies. However, our discussions and consultations had some effect on our decision, and we saw no need to extend the commission's clause 16 powers.
We believe that it would be rare indeed for material relevant to the commission's activities to be held solely by a public body in Scotland and not to be available from another source, or for the commission to be denied ready access to such material if it were found.
Normal practice—I know that the hon. Member for Upper Bann does not like normal practice, but it works, and in that respect it works well—is that where material relating to an offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland is found, it is passed to the appropriate authority. I hope that, in view of what I have said, hon. Members will not press the new clause further.

Mr. Mullin: I quite understand that the Minister might not want to accept the new clause tonight, but perhaps he will consider introducing a suitable measure in the House of Lords. Failing that, there may still be time to put something in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, if that is the appropriate way to go about it.

Mr. Baker: The proper thing for me to do is to refer the debate to my friends and colleagues in the Scottish Office, who will understand the urgency that many hon. Members have expressed. That will form part of the consultation that is currently taking place.

Mr. McFall: We have had a worthwhile debate. As other hon. Members have said, and as the Minister has realised, it was born out of frustration. The Minister's response reveals that there has been a certain smugness in the Scottish legal establishment. When the issue of miscarriages of justice was at its height in England and Wales, people in the Scottish establishment felt that such things would not happen in Scotland.
Such things might happen in Scotland, and some extremely senior legal people there would tell us that it has already happened. When Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk, who is a member of the Sutherland committee, said that a body should be set up fairly quickly, we realised the urgency required. But the Government's


definition of urgency is puzzling. It seems to mean that they set up a committee that will report in two years' time. That is not urgency, and the Opposition know it.
We have not had a full debate on the subject tonight simply because, with due respect to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is here, no Scottish Minister has turned up. That is scandalous. It shows the apathy of the Scottish Office that it did not see fit to send one Minister to the Government Front Bench even to listen to the debate. I ask the Home Office Minister to take back to the Scottish Office the message that the Opposition are willing and ready to consult on the issue. We see it not as a party political issue but as one that attacks the body politic of the legal system in Scotland—one that, if left long enough, could be cancerous. We do not want that situation to prevail—

Dr. Godman: If we are fair-minded, we must admit that the smugness to which my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred is less noticeable than it was. Moreover, there are a few radical minds among the members of the Law Society of Scotland who would like the changes to be made.

Mr. McFall: Yes. I am talking about the smugness in the Scottish Office, although the legal fraternity has also been subject to a certain smugness. But there are many senior people in the law in Scotland to whom that comment does not apply. A few weeks ago, I spoke to several judges who realised the urgency of the situation. An eminent Queen's counsel, Gordon Jackson, has written an article saying that something needs to be done, and many people recognise that fact.
My main attack is on the smugness of the Government. We have had no real debate tonight because the Scottish Office has not thought fit to come here and discuss the issue. My new clause was tabled to tease out the Government's thinking and to offer the services of the Opposition to find a solution. The Government have not responded, but when people outside read Hansard they will realise the Opposition's good intentions and the Government's apathy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

THE COMMISSION: GRANTS TO INDIVIDUALS

'.—(1) The Commission may make a grant to any individual whose case has been referred to the Commission for consideration or who wishes the Commission to consider his case—

(a) on the grounds that the case raises an issue of general principle which should be tested and considered in the public interest, or
(b) by reason of any other special consideration—

(2) The powers under this section shall be exercised only—

(a) under regulations drawn up by the Commission and approved by the Secretary of State, and
(b) from within the Commission's agreed budget.

(3) Grants made under this section shall be applied only to the specific purposes agreed by the Commission which may include obtaining advise or assistance from a solicitor or counsel or such other person as the Commission may specify—


(a) to prepare a submission to the Commission,
(b) to conduct an investigation requested or guided by the Commission,
(c) to respond to statements, reports and opinions disclosed by the Commission, or
(d) to make representations to the Commission on whether a person's conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with a power that we seek to add for the commission to make grants to individuals in special circumstances, where the commission feels that there is a good reason to give special consideration to making money available. The individuals whom we have in mind are those who allege that they have been the victims of miscarriages of justice.
On Second Reading of the Bill, we cast doubt on the Government's calculations of the costs of its operation. Indeed, we pointed out then that if we aim to ensure that people have the capacity to be represented at the outcome of the commission's consideration of their cases, when matters come to court and when decisions are taken, the explanatory and financial memorandum was extremely lightweight.
The paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill provided to assist us on Second Reading lumped together a whole range of activities and demands on the work load of different aspects of the criminal justice system, with only one passing reference to the costs of legal aid, as follows:
This increase in the workload of the courts and the widening of the powers of the magistrates courts to reopen cases is likely to give rise to total costs of about £1.7 million (including court and prosecution costs and legal aid)".
It is open to doubt whether that is a correct estimate, and it is certainly questionable whether adequate support will be available for individuals in all the circumstances that may arise. At present there are often gaps, and it is clear that people who seriously believe that they have been victims of miscarriages of justice cannot obtain legal aid or other forms of support to undertake the work of providing the evidence necessary to get a court to consider their case, or to persuade the Home Secretary that there is a case that the Court of Appeal or his Department should consider further.
That is a serious problem, which has been illustrated by a variety of organisations, including Liberty and Justice. Many of us in the House have cause to be well aware of the shortcomings of the system, as a result of having dealt with individual cases involving our constituents.
So there is a gap which is not filled by the Bill. As I read the Bill, the commission does not have the capacity to choose to make a grant in circumstances in which it believes that something needs to be done to correct or avoid the continuation of a miscarriage of justice.
New clause 10 does not seek to confer a wide discretion. It confers on the commission only the power to act within the budget that is made available to it. The power is equivalent in many ways to the power given to the Commission for Racial Equality when it was established. Therefore, there is a precedent for the provision of such a power.
The purpose of new clause 10 is to allow for a power to
make a grant to any individual whose case has been referred to the Commission for consideration or who wishes the Commission to consider his case".
It sets out the limited grounds on which such a grant might be made. The first is
that the case raises an issue of general principle which should be tested and considered in the public interest".
It is surely in the public interest that justice should be done and be seen to be done, and that miscarriages of justice should be dealt with. So there is that public interest requirement.
7 pm
The second ground is:
by reason of any other special consideration".
It is not possible to anticipate the experience that will develop as the commission undertakes its work. The new clause also limits the grant-making power to:
under regulations drawn up by the Commission and approved by the Secretary of State".
So the new clause does not take things outside the control of the Home Secretary and it limits grants to within the commission's agreed budget. Ministers have no reason to fear that a wide gap is being driven through proper controls or financial accountability. The new clause ensures that within the legislation there is a possibility to make grants and that new legislation will not be required if, as we suspect, such a power and such a system comes to be needed in the fullness of time.
As subsection (3) of new clause 10 says, we are looking at specific purposes such as the preparation of a submission to the commission, which can be difficult and onerous in some circumstances, undertaking an investigation in circumstances in which the commission felt that it was best undertaken by or on behalf of the applicant rather than directly by the commission, responding to statements, reports or opinions disclosed by the commission or making recommendations to the commission on whether a person's conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal. There are circumstances in which the commission might find it extremely helpful to enable that process to take place.
The new clause does not impose obligations or onerous duties. It ensures that powers are provided in the Bill that can be triggered should the need be revealed in the fullness of time. I suggest that it is also an opportunity for the Minister to deal with the point that I made at the beginning of this brief speech. The other means of providing assistance to individuals is the existing legal aid system, which is not changed by the provisions of the Bill or, indeed, of new clause 10. There will be occasions on which individuals will seek to go through the existing legal aid system in order to prepare a submission to the commission, conduct investigations which might lead towards a submission, respond to the statements, reports and opinions of the commission or make representations to the commission. It would be helpful if the Minister gave us some reassurance about the way in which legal aid issues will be dealt with in practice.
The Law Society has expressed concern that lawyers will be required to be involved in certain processes if the commission is to be effective and the whole structure that

we seek to create in the Bill is to be as effective as we all want it to be. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify that, as well as to respond to a new clause which we have carefully limited in its scope and direction so that Ministers have no fears about allowing the Bill to be amended. The new clause makes the Bill far-sighted and enables it to cover eventualities that might arise in the future. In that light, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: Now that the hordes of rebellious Scots have been crushed and have retreated from the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman and I can return to the constructive dialogue that we have had throughout the debates in the Committee and in the Chamber tonight. I am grateful to him for explaining the intentions behind his new clause. Although he makes a careful and beguiling case, I regret that I am unable to accept it.
First, I am not sure what is meant by
an issue of general principle which should be tested and considered in the public interest
in subsection (1)(a) of the new clause. It could easily be argued that the cases most deserving of funding were those in which there was no issue of general principle beyond the issue of whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in the particular case in question. Nor am I sure what other special considerations may be thought to be relevant. In any case, there seem to be a number of practical difficulties with the scheme proposed.
If the commission were to pay out money to applicants, it could and probably would add significantly to its costs. According to the hon. Gentleman's new clause, they would be met from within the commission's existing budget, but it would have to be a budget much bigger than we would envisage setting if it did not have to pay out grants. It would also be a burden on the commission's resources in terms of the amount of time that it would take to draw up the regulations, to consider each application to see whether it met the conditions set out in subsection (1), and to ensure that each grant was used for the specific purpose agreed by the commission.
The Public Accounts Committee would be the first to condemn us if we gave a grant-making power to such a body and that body did not have full and detailed scrutiny mechanisms to make sure that the money was properly and wisely spent and the Government knew what was going on. So I am afraid that we would need a great palaver of machinery, rightly so, to satisfy our requirements and those of the PAC. I do not think that we want the commission to get bogged down in that sort of work.
In Committee the Opposition moved amendments in which they expressed their view that if the commission troubled itself with the few cases that it would have each year of people appealing against their sentence, it would be an inappropriate use of the commission's time. For the reasons that I advanced in Committee, I believe that it is an appropriate use of the commission's time, but I must admit that the Opposition's arguments tonight are weaker than those which they advanced against us in those circumstances.
I do not believe that the proposal in the new clause would be an effective use of the commission's time. Nor do I believe that the new clause is necessary as both potential applicants and those whose cases are under consideration by the commission will be able to apply for


legal aid to obtain the assistance of solicitors in making representations to the commission under the existing green form scheme. That is the main point.
The hon. Gentleman asked for my assurances. I am delighted to give them. Legal aid will continue to be made available to people who make applications to the commission through the green form scheme. This scheme will assist convicted persons to make representations to the commission, both at the original application stage and following the disclosure of material gathered in the course of the commission's investigations. I know that whenever I clarify something about the Bill, the hon. Gentleman says that I have made a tremendous admission and moved the Government's position considerably. I do not think that I have, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to say that he has won a marvellous concession from me tonight, I am happy to accede in the interests of brevity.
I note that subsection 3(b) of the new clause would enable the commission to make a grant for an investigation which was requested or guided by the commission. That again is unnecessary. The costs of the commission's investigations will be met by the commission or, if it requires the appointment of an investigating officer from a police force, by the force which conducts the resulting investigation. Costs of inquiries made by investigating officers appointed by public bodies other than the police will be met by the public body which originally investigated the offence in question. No additional provision for investigations by applicants is therefore necessary.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, particularly my firm assurances on the availability of legal aid to applicants, the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not necessary to push the new clause and will be willing to withdraw it in as nice as possible a Celtic manner, of which he and I are both exponents.

Mr. Michael: The Minister is trying a new approach on me—charm. I look forward to seeing whether, within the charm of his response, there are one or two nuggets. He sought to reassure us about the availability of legal aid in respect of the different activities to which I referred: the preparation of submissions to the commission; the conducting of investigations responding to items, statements and other matters that are disclosed by the commission; and making representations on whether a person's conviction should be referred to the Court of Appeal. I am grateful to him for that reassurance.
I hope that, once the commission starts its work, the reality turns out to be as generous as the Minister's words this evening. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we must wait and see. His words will have been noted by all those interested in such matters. Either they will be taken as the touchstone for how those matters are dealt with or they will return to haunt the Minister in the fullness of time.
The Minister has misread the new clause. If the powers are not needed, they need not be implemented. If he is right to suggest that things will be so perfect in the scheme of affairs that he set out, the provisions would simply be unused. But if, as we suspect, there are anomalies and difficulties, Ministers will say that we must wait for an appropriate opportunity to amend the legislation before they can put those matters right. The new clause provides the opportunity in advance to ensure that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to put matters

right as soon as the problems are recognised by Ministers, or Ministers receive recommendations from the commission in the light of its experience.
I am sorry that the Minister has seen fit to reject this constructive new clause. The proposal may be debated further in another place and the Minister may have had an opportunity to reflect on this short debate by the time one of his colleagues deals with further discussions on the Bill. In order that we may progress to other issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15

DEFRAYMENT OF POLICE EXPENSES

'.The Commission shall defray any reasonable costs incurred by any police authority in the carrying out of inquiries or investigations by any of its police officers in pursuance of a direction given by the Commission under the terms of this Act.'.—[Mr. Beith]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in schedule 1, page 23, line 25, at end insert—

'The report shall include a breakdown of the costs of investigations during the relevant year, including—

(a) the Commission's own costs,
(b) the costs falling to each police authority, and
(c) the costs falling to any other body during the year covered by the report.'.

Mr. Beith: The explanatory and financial memorandum appended to the Bill when it was first presented to the House was seriously misleading because it implied that there were no additional costs to public bodies other than those specified, which the commission would incur and which are provided for. Police forces carrying out investigations which the commission directs them to carry out will incur enormous costs. Some investigations may cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, which will make a significant mark on those police authorities' budgets.
Police authorities are newly created authorities of a quite different form from the previous local authority committees and joint committees which ran the police service outside London. The Home Office has given the new police authorities budgets and they are just beginning to implement that system. Because they are new, they will not have accumulated reserves; nor can they call on the general reserves of a local authority, as might have been possible under the old system when they were local authority committees. Thus they have no recourse to alternative financing if they are hit by the significant costs of an investigation.
7.15 pm
The Association of Chief Police Officers raised concerns from the beginning about how the costs were to be met. Most police authorities are under severe pressure and believe that the new budgets cannot achieve the level of service that the Home Office assumes, partly because of difficulties such as the high cost of police pensions, which in many authorities are significantly higher than the figures assumed by the Home Office when it set out the budgets. That is for a series of reasons, such as the pattern


of retirement relating to the years in which officers were recruited in larger numbers and the consequences of the Sheehy report, and it is one of many factors which lead many police authorities to say that their budgets are under severe pressure.
The Home Secretary has told police authorities that they are free to appoint extra officers under the new system. But they can do so only if they reallocate funds from other parts of their budgets. The Home Secretary recognises that his budgetary provisions do not assume funds for additional officers, but says that forces which reallocate within their budgets and make prudent resource decisions should be able to provide for additional officers. But what will happen if a force does so having said that it will make no provision for any investigation which the commission may direct it to carry out? I am glad that the Home Secretary is here to tell us what his response will be if a police authority tells him, "The commission that you set up requires us to conduct an inquiry costing £500,000, but you earlier advised us that we should adjust our budgets so that if we need extra officers we can appoint them. We have appointed extra officers and have no money left in our budget to finance an investigation on that scale, so if the commission directs us to do so will it please tell us who will pay for it?" The current assumption in the Bill is that the police authority must nevertheless find the money out of non-existent reserves and without the capacity to bring in an extra levy or a supplementary council tax in the middle of the year to cover it. So how is that money to be found?
Furthermore, police authorities can be capped individually if their expenditure is above what the Home Office considers appropriate. They may already have been capped. What does a capped police authority do when the commission directs it to carry out a major inquiry, either into something that has happened in its own force in the past or into something that has happened in another force where the chief officer has recognised—he cannot be forced to do so—the merits of the matter being investigated by another force? Investigations will be passed around like parcels at a party as police authorities say that they cannot afford to do any more because they have no more money in their budgets.
Investigations can be extremely costly. Pay, overtime, travel, allowances, paperwork and computer costs all need to be funded. Through overtime or some other means, officers must carry out the work of other officers diverted to an inquiry, who may have important investigating or management roles within the police force concerned. Unless we make provision for reimbursement to the authority of the cost of an inquiry, the clause will take officers away from dealing with crime and preventing crime, and may do so disproportionately in some forces. A small force with a matter from its own area to investigate may be hit disproportionately. One of the smaller police forces might emerge as particularly good at carrying out inquiries so that officers have to be brought in from another force. However, it may quickly realise that that is not a good idea. Developing a skill, facility and reputation for carrying out inquiries in other police force areas will be disastrous if the effect of doing so is to clobber the police authority budget and take officers away from operational duties in tackling and preventing crime.
We remain extremely concerned, therefore, at the lack of proper financial arrangements for police authorities. If arrangements are not made, officers will be taken away from important front-line duties without the authority having the means to make up the gap. We all recognise that police officers must sometimes be diverted into that work as it is an important part of the criminal justice system, as they are now, under arrangements with the Home Office. The new authority may, however, be more onerous in its demands as to what the inquiry should involve. I think that the Minister conceded that because the commission, he claims, has power of supervision, it may well make more exacting requirements in some cases than the Home Office has done hitherto.
The Government have also recognised, in their funding and assumptions about the commission, that there will be a bulge—perhaps even a rush—of applications in the first year or two, arising from the backlog in recent years. That will similarly affect police authorities. However, no provision has been made for the extra quantity of inquiries that will land on them, at a greater rate than currently occurs because of anything that the Home Office might ask them to investigate. More inquiries will take place and more costs will be incurred by more police authorities.
That appears to us to be a serious deficiency in the way in which the matter is being approached, and one which will work to the detriment of fighting crime. I therefore ask the Minister to resolve the matter and tell us how authorities are to fund that work.

Mr. Michael: I agree with many of the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), especially about the inadequate estimate of the impact of costs that will arise as a result of establishing the new organisation.
As I said earlier, I am worried about the likelihood that the cost of undertaking investigations has been seriously underestimated, and that the Government have sought in effect to cut the impact on the Government's budget by shifting the burden to local police authorities. There is something curious about the idea of rewarding increased competence in an activity by giving additional burdens to those who develop that competence. It should surely be the other way round.
I wish to deal specifically with amendment No. 7, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It seeks to make the matter of cost transparent. It seeks to ensure that, in each annual report, figures are given of the costs of investigations in the relevant year.
In the amendment, we suggest three pieces of information; first, the commission's own costs; secondly, the costs falling to each police authority; and thirdly, the costs falling to any other body during the year covered by the report. The last element—the costs falling to other bodies—may be relatively small and insignificant, and providing that information should not be onerous; nevertheless, it should be there. I should have thought that the other two elements ought to be there as a matter of course, so accepting that they should be required on the face of the Bill should give no problem to the Minister.
First, the commission, if it is being competently managed, should be able to identify and analyse its own costs and the way in which its resources are being used. To require on the face of the Bill that the commission should provide that information merely ensures that the


right systems and computer software are put in place when the commission is established, rather than being sought late in the day and resulting in answers to Members of Parliament along the lines of, "This information is not available in the form requested." If it is stated on the face of the Bill that we expect that kind of proper breakdown to be provided, there should be no doubt and no difficulty about providing it.
The second element—the costs falling to each police authority—is surely also sensible. It is in the public interest that the impact of the commission's work on police authorities should be open and above board—open to scrutiny and available to members of the police authorities—and that the information should be provided in a standard form. In other words, if there is an impact on one police authority, one should be able to compare that with the impact on others because the information is provided in the same way, just as other statistics are provided to the Home Office in the same form from different police forces. That would have the great benefit of making transparent something that is at present opaque.
Reference has been made to the financial estimates made by the Government at the time of Second Reading and to the fact that they bundled a variety of different issues together. We pursued that matter in Committee, when I asked the Minister a straightforward question:
What is the Minister's estimate of the increase in cost? How has he made that calculation?
It is only fair to quote the Minister's response. He said:
I have no estimate of the increase in cost"—
in other words, "I do not know; I haven't a clue; I haven't the foggiest." He then said:
We have not calculated the number of officers that a hypothetical in-house team would need. However, if the commission employed its own police officers, working from some central headquarters, it is clear that additional costs, at least for allowances, would be incurred."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 March 1995; c. 90–91.]
He then expanded on the subject of the additional costs of an independent team, but additional to what? We do not know: additional to a figure that the Minister and the Government have not estimated.
I have pursued that issue since the time when those matters were mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, and I tabled a question to the Home Secretary, asking:
what research projects or investigations have been undertaken by his Department or on behalf of his Department into international comparisons of the costs of investigating miscarriages of justice.
I received a simple answer: "None." No investigations have been undertaken to try to establish, on comparisons elsewhere, what the costs would be to the public purse. I also asked the Minister:
what research projects or investigations have been undertaken by his Department or on behalf of his Department into the costs of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice; and what conclusions were arrived at.
It seems a fairly simple and straightforward piece of preparation to undertake when approaching a piece of legislation. We have argued many a time and oft that the piece of legislation before us has been long delayed, apparently because the Home Secretary was so exhaustively seeking to ensure that the organisation to investigate miscarriages of justice was set up in a considered way. It could have been set up a couple of years ago, but the Home Secretary wanted to take time to

investigate everything. Well, he did not investigate the costs, and that appears to be a curious omission. The answer to that question was:
Information about the present and possible future costs of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice is contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Criminal Appeal Bill.
If that is the best that the Home Office can do, that does not amount to information that is of any use to anyone in understanding the impact of the Bill.
The Minister then responded to some questions that I asked about the work that was undertaken in conjunction with several police forces to try to investigate the costs of investigations under the present system. Information was requested from a range of police forces, and we understand that some of those forces, when asked for information about the costs of undertaking specific inquiries, including the Metropolitan police in three cases, the West Mercia constabulary in one, the Kent constabulary in two, the Thames Valley police in one and the West Yorkshire police in another, were unable to provide the information requested.
I should have thought that it was straightforward for such information to be available. If police forces undertake investigations at the request of the Home Office, I should have thought that it was fairly straightforward to ensure that the cost of those investigations was known and reportable. But it was not. That makes the case for amendment No. 7, to ensure that we are not in ignorance about the investigations undertaken on behalf of the new organisation.
An answer was available about seven of the 16 cases in which the Home Secretary sought information. Those range very widely, from a case investigated by the Lancashire constabulary costing £570.04—obviously the Lancashire constabulary undertakes careful monitoring of every penny—to a case undertaken by the Greater Manchester police at £192,913. It is not surprising that there is a vast range of cost as some investigations are simple and straightforward while others are complex. Nevertheless, the information is minimal and limited.
In response to other questions, the Minister provided an analysis of some of the inquiries conducted. The length of the inquiries varied considerably from the case involving the Lancashire constabulary of some 31 hours, to which I have referred, to periods of eight months, 84 weeks and 86 weeks. In supplying that information, the Minister pointed out:
It is not the responsibility of an investigating officer to make recommendations as to what action my right hon. and learned Friend should take on a case".—[Official Report, 25 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 435–37.]
The Home Secretary decided not to refer four of the cases mentioned in the Minister's response—which appears in Hansard of Tuesday 25 April—to the Court of Appeal. The other cases are still being considered.
7.30 pm
The commission's recommendations and the information that it receives will vary, as will the work of the police, in the light of the legislation. The importance of establishing this body has been stressed for a long time as it will restore confidence in the capacity of the British legal system to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice. It is therefore very important that the commission should


be established properly, that the system should be transparent and that information should be available to hon. Members in a common form.
In that spirit, our amendment No. 7 would ensure that, from the time the Bill is published in its final form, those involved with the commission and those who undertake inquiries on its behalf in police forces or in other public bodies will be aware of the requirement to provide proper financial accounting for the activities that they undertake. If the Minister is not able to accept new clause 15 proposed by right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I hope that he will at least accept our modest amendment and guarantee transparency as to the cost implications of the legislation for public bodies.

Mr. Maclean: I have again listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I note the concerns that they have expressed and I agree that the costs of the commission and its investigations will need to be monitored carefully. Having said that, I do not believe that the proposed amendments are helpful.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked how the cost of police investigations would be met. The short answer is: in exactly the same way as it is met at the moment. At present, the cost of any police investigation requested by the Home Secretary into a possible miscarriage of justice is met from within the existing resources of the police force concerned. The Criminal Appeal Bill does not give the police force a new role to perform; it tackles the task already and it will continue to perform it when the commission is up and running. Therefore, no great new cost will be involved.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: I think that I know what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say. It is a crucial point and—if I may anticipate his remarks—I think that he has got it wrong. I acknowledge that we expect the commission, at least initially, to receive representations about many more cases each year than currently occurs. We expect an increased work load for the commission because more people will make applications to it.
We also believe, however, that those who will approach the commission—perhaps as many as half—will be concerned about cases that have been considered previously and rejected by the Secretary of State. By virtue of clause 17, the commission will have access to all the police reports, forensic science reports, statements obtained and other relevant material which the Secretary of State considered in evaluating the cases. It will not be a matter of starting from scratch and beginning a whole new investigation.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: I should like to complete my point as it is an important one which I believe has led to some misunderstanding. The potential for unnecessary duplication of inquiries by the police should therefore be minimal.
If C3's experience is any guide, not all the cases brought to the commission's attention will require any investigation by the police. Currently, such inquiries are

needed in only 45 per cent. of cases—that is 329 per year—and even then half of them entail relatively minor inquiries, such as tracing and interviewing one or two witnesses, reviewing case papers, clarifying some minor details, and so on. The remainder require more substantial inquiries. We know of nothing to suggest that the proportion of cases requiring investigation will change or that the nature of the inquiries will alter once the commission starts work.
I say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the nicest possible way, that he may have the wrong end of the stick. We expect that more people will make applications to the commission initially, but we do not expect a greatly increased burden on the police. We believe that current police resources are adequate to deal with the present inquiries and those with which they will be asked to deal in future.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth cited some of the figures that I have supplied to him in the past few days. If he looks at those cases—even those which have gone on for 82 weeks and have cost almost £200,000, which is a large inquiry—he will see that they form only a tiny part of most police budgets.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he said something that is crucial to public confidence in the Bill and in the commission that it will establish. He suggested that there will be no additional investigations or extra work. Does he not accept that there is a backlog of cases which have not been dealt with because there is no system for considering them at present? Is not the commission expected to open up cases that have been waiting to be dealt with for an extensive period? Does he not accept that that was the import of the royal commission's recommendations, as well as the reason for establishing a royal commission inquiry? If the commission is to be as limited as he suggests in the scope of its investigations and those undertaken on its behalf, he will be dragging us back to where we were before the Bill was published. Surely the Minister cannot mean what he has just said.

Mr. Maclean: I do mean it. I totally reject the suggestion that there is a huge backlog of cases which have not been dealt with properly or have been ignored by C3 or by the Secretary of State. That is not the reason why we have set up the independent appeals tribunal. There is no suggestion that C3 has refused to deal with cases or that it has turned away hundreds, or even thousands, of deserving appellants.
Some people may be unhappy about the decisions that they have received, but their cases were investigated and reviewed thoroughly. I suspect that it is the applicants who did not like the decision not to refer their cases to the Court of Appeal who will apply to the commission when they hear that a new body which is divorced from the Secretary of State has been established. It is inevitable that they will try to have their cases reopened to see whether they can get a better outcome. Every hon. Member is familiar with that occurrence. People often approach newly elected Members of Parliament with a horrific, apparently new problem, claiming that they did not approach the previous Member of Parliament about it. The commission will also face that difficulty. From the smiles that I see around the Chamber, I can tell that that


happens to us all. However, I do not envisage that the commission will pass on a greatly increased work load to the police service.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on this important matter. Obviously, some cases are undeserving, and we have all shared the Minister's experience. However, does the Minister not acknowledge what the royal commission found—that many cases have simply been left to fester because we lack a body such as the one that we are establishing in the Bill? The royal commission recommended the establishment of that body and the legislation will achieve it. That will lead to investigations which are not being undertaken at present. Surely the Minister acknowledges that fact, because it is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. Maclean: I did not acknowledge that a vast body of cases which had not been adequately dealt with were left festering. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make such allegations, he must give us the chapter and verse. He must give us the information. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) never made that allegation. He presented a dossier to the Home Secretary of 50 cases in which he believed there had been a miscarriage of justice, or he did not like the outcome or the way in which the case was handled, but he did not say that those cases were ignored or that a vast body of cases had been left festering or had not been addressed.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is wrong. It is not envisaged that the police service will have a vastly increased work load because there are hundreds or even dozens of cases out there which have not been investigated by C3 and which have been covered up and that the commission will demand a whole new inquiry in cases with which C3 would not have bothered in the past. That is simply not correct.

Mr. Michael: The Minister winds a comment up to knock it down. I did not use the word "vast"; the Minister used the word "vast". I said that there are a number of cases—a serious number, not an insignificant number—that the royal commission reported which are not dealt with under existing provisions and are left festering through the lack of such a body, which needs to be established. That is the reason for the Bill. That is why the urgency has been growing before and since the royal commission produced its report. That is why the royal commission was established in the first place.
I am surprised that the Minister seems not to acknowledge the case that was made for the body by the royal commission, the existence of cases that need to be dealt with by that body and investigations that it needs to undertake because they have not been dealt with adequately under the present system. The Bill is about restoring confidence in the criminal justice system in Britain.

Mr. Maclean: The prime case for the creation of the body is to create transparency and to remove the present system from political control and the Home Office. That is the prime reason for advancing the body, not because there is a small or a large body of cases out there which have not been properly investigated.
I am conscious that the House wishes to make progress and that we ought to wind up the debate on new clause 15 and move on, but I cannot let the allegation stand that C3 and the Home Office have been negligent or failed to

deal with a body of cases adequately or properly under the present system. The hon. Gentleman said that those cases had been left festering.

Mr. Michael: Yes.

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman claims that cases have been left festering, he had better produce the names and details of the cases where the present system has failed.
Page 182 of the royal commission report states:
Our recommendation is based on the proposition, adequately established in our view by Sir John May's inquiry, that the role assigned to the Home Secretary and his Department under the existing legislation is incompatible with the constitutional separation of powers as between courts and the executive.
That is the reason for the new body. The report continues:
The scrupulous observance of constitutional principles has meant a reluctance on the part of the Home Office to inquire deeply enough into cases put to it and, given the constitutional background, we do not think this is likely to change significantly in future.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before this discussion continues, let me say that I have been looking carefully again at new clause 15 and the amendment and I cannot see how it will bear this rather general discussion when it evidently deals with reasonable costs.

Mr. Michael: I hope that this intervention will come precisely to that, because the Minister has made a number of claims. He quoted selectively from chapter 11 of the royal commission's report.
In paragraph 6 on page 181 in chapter 11 of the report, the royal commission states:
There is in theory no restriction on the numbers or categories of cases which the Home Secretary may refer to the Court of Appeal under section 17 since the section gives him discretion to refer cases 'if he thinks fit'. In practice, however, as Sir John May observed in his second report on the Maguire case, the Home Secretary and the civil servants advising him operate within strict self-imposed limits.
It makes it clear in that and other parts of the royal commission's report that the present system is far too limited and the reason for moving away from the Home Secretary is not simply that the Home Secretary is a political appointee, but that consideration of appeals is far more restricted than it ought to be in the interests of justice.
That is why the cost of the increased work which would be undertaken and the increased investigations that will need to be undertaken is so important. That is the reason for the amendment and for the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Minister's words today deny the conclusions of the royal commission and deny the known facts that there are festering cases, one involving a Mike O'Brien who is not a Member of Parliament.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to remain in order, but he is now falling foul of something else. Interventions should be short and he is making a speech.

Mr. Maclean: I detect that the mood of the House for the past 10 minutes has been to move on.

Mr. Michael: It is the mood of the Minister.

Mr. Maclean: Yes it is, but it is also the mood of the House. This is not fertile ground. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are cases out there festering where the Home Office and C3 have been negligent in dealing with them, let him bring those dossiers chapter and verse.

Mr. Michael: The use of the word throughout is the Minister's, not mine.

Mr. Maclean: The Hansard record will stand.
I shall move on because my original point stands. We do not envisage the police service having greatly increased burdens landed on it by the commission. We expect the commission to have increased burdens initially as more people seek to try their cases again or take them to the commission again. Some people who might not know that there is a present appeals system to the Secretary of State may be informed of it and try for the first time.
I believe that inquiries undertaken by the police on behalf of the Secretary of State are thorough and effective. The involvement of the commission will not necessarily result in deeper or more wide-ranging inquiries being undertaken. The investigation will be as wide as is necessary in the circumstances of each case. Direction and supervision by the commission may even result in some savings and the commission could quickly close down unproductive lines of investigation by means of the powers provided under clause 19.
Therefore, I can see no compelling reason why the present arrangements for the funding of police inquiries into the miscarriage of justice should change and although I have listened to both hon. Members I am afraid that I cannot accept their amendments.

Mr. Beith: I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. He recognises that there will be a greater number of applications, many of which might not require further investigation, but that implies that the commission would have very little work to do if it ruled out almost all of them. Some will require fresh investigation and there is bound to be an initial additional work load. In some cases, the commission will surely exercise its powers to direct more extensive inquiries than C3 and the Home Office would have done.
When one sets that against the background of police authorities which do not have reserves, which can be capped and which are under particular strain at the moment—all new circumstances against which the legislation has to be tested—it is clear that provision should have been made. In no part of his answer did the Minister provide any reassurance to police authorities that they will not finish up taking officers from important duties policing their own areas without any recompense or means of filling the gap. That is so

unsatisfactory, given the problems in crime and policing in Britain, that I believe that we should press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 189.

Division No. 137]
[7.48 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Lynne, Ms Liz


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maddock, Diana


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Rendel, David


Connarty, Michael
Rooney, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Flynn, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)



Godman, Dr Norman A
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hinchliffe, David
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Mr. David Chidgey.




NOES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Gallie, Phil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Horam, John


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Legg, Barry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Maginnis, Ken
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, Jonn


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)



Trend, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trimble, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Derek Conway and


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

PRESERVATION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the preservation of material evidence following a criminal conviction on indictment in order to ensure its availability to the Commission in undertaking any relevant inquiries.

(2) Any power under this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

(3) No statutory instrument to which this section applies shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8 pm

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Amendment No. 8, in clause 16, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) The Commission may, where it is reasonable to do so, issue a direction to the person who is the appropriate person in relation to the public body, that the document or other material shall not be destroyed, damaged or altered for as long as is reasonably necessary.'.

Amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 8, after 'to', insert
'or other material of relevance to'.

Amendment No. 11, in clause 19, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
'(2A) Where an investigating officer is appointed it shall be his duty to take all reasonable steps for the purpose of obtaining and preserving evidence relating to the case.'.

Mr. Michael: The aim of the new clause is to ensure that evidence following a criminal conviction on indictment can be preserved so as to be available to the commission when it undertakes any relevant inquiries. It carefully proposes the means to ensure that that power exists and that there is accountability for its exercise, under regulations.
The Government amendments grouped with the new clause follow undertakings given in Committee on behalf of the Government to consider this need to preserve evidence. Indeed, we had a helpful debate in Committee. The Minister considered the amendments that we tabled and undertook to return to the matter on Report. He agreed that we had made serious points in respect of the preservation of evidence, but was not sure that our amendments were strictly necessary.
We have sought to deal with the matter in a constructive new clause that would leave the detail to regulations to be laid by the Home Secretary and considered by the House. We thought that that offered the necessary flexibility.
In Committee, the Minister accepted the necessity of preserving evidence, and the Government amendments demonstrate that too. The question remains whether the Government's amendments go far enough, or whether their phraseology is too limiting. They are of course permissive amendments; I hope that the Minister will clarify exactly how he intends to limit the capability to preserve materials; and that he will tell us why he is confident that the amendments, not the new clause, will deal with all the circumstances for which we have sought to empower the Home Secretary.
It is most important that there should be no gap through which various materials might fall. There may be a time between a growing apprehension that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and the point when formal action begins. During that period, evidence could be removed or lost through no fault of an individual. Such evidence has often mysteriously disappeared as soon as it has become clear that there is likely to be a full investigation.
It is most important that any legal requirement and regulations be effective in ensuring that such things cannot go on—or at least that their incidence is limited.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on these points. I welcome the fact that Ministers have followed through their undertakings in Committee to take seriously the points that we raised there, and the fact that they, like us, have produced suggestions that we can debate on the Floor of the House this evening.

Mr. Maclean: Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I recognise the necessity of


ensuring that investigations made by or on behalf of the commission are not hampered by the destruction or alteration of what may be crucial documents or other material. It is right that the commission should be able to direct that papers, and so forth, should not be destroyed or altered during the course of an investigation by the commission.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for raising the subject in Committee. That gave us the opportunity to look at the wording of the Bill, to ensure that the powers involved were adequate. We thought that clause 16 granted the commission fairly strong powers to ensure that all documents were retained; but following our debate in Committee I agreed to look again at whether the commission could or should be given powers to direct that documents or other material held by a public body should not be damaged, altered or destroyed while the commission was considering the case to which they related.
We concluded that it would be wise to table the amendments in this group. They enable the commission to direct the appropriate person of any public body that the documents or other material held by him in relation to any case should not be damaged, destroyed or altered until the direction is withdrawn.
As to the wider question of whether we need broad regulation-making powers of the sort envisaged in the new clause, I am not persuaded. As I said in Committee, we need a more consistent approach to retention periods than we have now; that goes for all documents in Government and police circles. As many hon. Members already know, work is under way with a view to developing such an approach. Discussions are taking place with the police service, the Forensic Science Service, the CPS and others whose papers and/or other material may be of assistance to the commission and to others in the performance of their respective functions. We hope that those discussions will result in far greater standardisation of retention periods. Legislation may not be needed to achieve that—perhaps a code of practice or a set of guidelines will ultimately suffice. It may turn out that there is a need for legislation, but I doubt it.
The Government consider it best to look to the work that I have described to achieve what we all want: greater consistency governing the retention periods for documents and other material. We should not try to legislate separately and in detail. New clause 16 is a genuine attempt to draw attention to a problem. I acknowledge that clause 16 could have been better worded, so we tabled the amendments to plug a loophole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that satisfactory. However, I do not want detailed regulations to cover the commissions's work. We want a wider solution—

Mr. Michael: I acknowledge that the Government amendments deal with the situation once the commission is aware of the possibility that it might need to investigate a case. What I am worried about, however, is that it may become clear that a case will be referred to the commission, but until that case reaches the commission, it will not be in a position to make a relevant order.
We did not seek to set out detailed requirements; we tried to leave it to the Secretary of State to come up with regulations to plug any gap. Does the Minister not feel

that there may still be some gaps in the necessary powers attaching to the Home Secretary, and that the new clause would allow him to lay the necessary regulations?

Mr. Maclean: No. The gap, such as it may be, is in the power of retention generally. The hon. Gentleman says that there might be a case which it becomes clear will go to the commission, but there might be many other cases where no one suspects that there might be an alleged miscarriage of justice and where there is no prospect at an early stage of the case going to the commission.
Unless we have proper rules to keep relevant papers for three, seven, 10 or 20 years, they will automatically or routinely be destroyed in all innocence—by the police after a given period or by the Crown Prosecution Service or someone else—because it could be many years before a miscarriage of justice is alleged. To deal with such cases, we need general and sensible retention rules throughout the whole criminal justice system so that we are not legislating only for those cases in which we can spot a mile away that there might one day be the allegation of a miscarriage of justice. We therefore intend to hold all relevant papers for a sensible period, and I think that the Government's proposals will make for a wider and more sensible solution across all Departments.
For those reasons, I do not accept the detailed new clause. I am, however, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject in Committee, as that enabled us to have a further look—that is how Committees should work sensitively and constructively—and to table Government amendments Nos. 32 and 33. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his wise words but I hope that he will not press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has spoken to the new clause and the Government amendments. I was pleased to hear more about the intention to introduce requirements for the general retention of papers. I acknowledge that that would deal with the generality of cases, including those which may be caught by the provisions of new clause 16 relating to the potential work of the commission. However, it seems that a small gap is left.
New clause 16 would provide a wider power than is relevant to the commission's work, as the Minister rightly said, but the use of that power could be limited to cases that were relevant to the commission's work. If the Government amendments are accepted but the new clause is not, there will still be a slight gap in the Bill's provisions. However, it seems sensible that the Government's amendments should be passed with our support and that the remaining gap should be a matter for further discussion in another place.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge my point that there might be a need for some regulation to allow defence solicitors or the commission to flag up something that has not formally come to their notice but seems likely to do so. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the preservation of papers and other evidence to be guaranteed, even in advance of the general powers that the Minister says will be introduced in due course. Perhaps another amendment could fill the gap between us.
I am sure that the Minister accepts that there are difficulties, and I understand that new clause 16 perhaps ranges wider than would be appropriate in a measure that deals specifically with the responsibilities of the


commission. For that reason, I indicate my support and that of my colleagues for the Government amendments, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 17

LEAVE TO APPEAL: ENGLAND & WALES

'In section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal against conviction) after subsection 2 (requirement of leave to appeal or certificate of trial judge) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) The Court of Appeal may, if they think it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, grant leave to appeal against conviction notwithstanding that a previous application to appeal has been determined (either by refusal for leave or after a substantive hearing) in respect of the same conviction".'.—[Mr. Corbyn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 18—Leave to appeal: Northern Ireland—

'In section 1 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (appeal against conviction) subject to the requirement of leave to appeal or certificate of trial judge) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) The Court of Appeal may, if they think it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice, grant leave to appeal against conviction notwithstanding that a previous application to appeal has been determined (either by a refusal for leave or after a substantive hearing) in respect of the same conviction.".'.

Mr. Corbyn: I feel a bit like an intruder in a private conversation, as hon. Members have clearly had many debates in Committee to which I was not privy, although I have access to the Committee Hansard.
New clauses 17 and 18 are designed to give direct access to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) tabled new clause 4, which was not selected but which would have allowed direct access to the Court of Appeal to appeal against sentence. New clauses 17 and 18 are extensions of that new clause's provisions.
It is common sense that a wrongful conviction is a cause of deep concern. Many of us have been involved in campaigns against miscarriages of justice. Clearly, we feel that there should be access directly to the Court of Appeal for people who believe that, despite having lost a previous appeal, their cases should be heard again.
In his report into the investigation of the Preece case, the ombudsman said:
A miscarriage of justice by which a man or woman loses his or her liberty is one of the gravest matters which can occupy the attention of a civilised society. And it seems to me that when an unprecedented pollution of justice at its source is discovered, quite an exceptional effort to identify and remedy its consequences is called for.
Surely, such views are generally held.
I hope that the new clauses will extend the idea behind, and the provisions in, the Bill because the opportunity to put right what has caused the growing concern about miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not often occur. I shall deal later with

Northern Ireland but I hope that we are well into a peaceful and healing process there. I believe that new clause 18 would assist in that respect.
8.15 pm
The proposed reforms to the criminal justice system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland fall a long way short of the changes introduced recently in the Republic of Ireland's Criminal Appeal Act 1993. In particular, a prospective appellant in the Republic who alleges that a new or newly discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice now has the statutory right to appeal directly to the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal for an order quashing the conviction.
The rationale behind that new statutory method is simple. If the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is a matter of serious concern in a civilised society, which it is, every prospective appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case properly. At the moment, he does not necessarily have that right. There are a number of reasons for that.
First, there have been serious problems with the sharing of evidence, as was mentioned in earlier debates. Secondly, until the Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary would be the only route to the Court of Appeal after an appeal had been lost.
In our adversarial system, those in the best position to judge whether prospective appellants have an arguable case to overturn their convictions are their lawyers. That must be borne in mind because lawyers have a duty to defend the best interests of their clients and obviously work to get them released if they have a strong case. The new clause is therefore a means of enabling us to examine the issue further and giving that direct access to the courts.
I do not think that any useful purpose is served by the introduction of a quasi-judicial intermediary stage in the process. If the necessary evidence or arguments exist, it would serve only to increase costs and delay proper resolution of the case.
One could cite a large number of large cases involving a miscarriage of justice—I have been involved with some—where the present system of lack of access to the Court of Appeal other than through the Home Secretary or, in future, through the commission, has been found deeply wanting. For example, I recall the case of Sivalingham and Kulasingham, which I took to the Home Office several times. They were wrongly convicted of fire-bombing some property in east London and were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A death had occurred and the spectre of murder charges haunted them. Eventually, the Home Secretary agreed that the synthesis of argument put forward by myself and others had merit. There was a police investigation, the case was ultimately referred to the Court of Appeal and the people were released. There have been a number of similar cases.
What I find depressing is the hit-and-miss approach in examining miscarriages of justice. If one has influential friends or people who are prepared to campaign on one's behalf, there is a possibility of getting the case heard, of getting it before the Home Secretary and, ultimately, into the Court of Appeal. I do not want the new system to end up like the old one, in which getting a case before the


Court of Appeal depended on the strength and ability of one's campaign. Therefore, I believe that there should be a statutory right of access to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that one of the difficulties with the system that he proposes is that it would open up the possibility of multiple applications being made to the Court of Appeal, time after time, by appellants who were in person without the advice of lawyers, which could result in the Court of Appeal being clogged up with cases that really have no great merit? Is it not better to have a filter of the sort that the Government suggest?

Mr. Corbyn: Clearly, a number of people would put cases forward repeatedly. I understand that problem and see that particular danger, although I think that it is possibly slightly exaggerated. What I am concerned about is the large number of cases that C3 has dealt with over the years, the delays involved in them, and, as I said earlier, the hit-and-miss approach on how a case gets to the Court of Appeal. Although some cases will not get very far, surely it is better that cases come before the court—they may well be re-examined by the court and dismissed, but new evidence would have to be produced to have the case re-examined, or there would have to be some argument in support of it—than to have a system in which there is a serious danger that there would be a continuation of miscarriages of justice in this country.
The people who were released fairly recently, following miscarriages of justice, are not the only ones, given the quality of legal representation in the first place, the quality of the evidence that was collected, the lack of sharing of that evidence and all the problems that go with it. That cannot be right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has chronicled in the House on a number of occasions, and did so again earlier today, the case of the Bridgewater Three.
New clause 18 gives the same powers to the Appeal Court in Northern Ireland, and would allow it to receive applications and to have access to them. That could be seen very much as part of a healing process and part of a peace process. Those who often have a significant mistrust of the judicial system in Northern Ireland, with the Diplock courts, would at least have direct access to a Court of Appeal to have their cases examined in some detail.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Bridgewater case. I represented evidence to the Minister on 8 June 1993 with the solicitor representing the accused. We were promised a rapid investigation and a rapid answer. It is now 1995. It is coming up to two years since I personally deposited a substantial dossier of 1,100 pages and 100 new items of evidence on his desk. We are on to the eighth police inquiry. That case cannot go on for ever being batted back and forth, with huge amounts of new evidence being produced. Indeed, evidence suggests that there was a lack of disclosure of evidence in the first place. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will reiterate what he said earlier or at least give me some hope that that case will be referred as soon as possible.
Those essentially are my main points. There is a fundamental weakness in the Bill in that it does not allow direct access to the Court of Appeal. Anyone who has

been involved in the misery and horrors of long-term campaigning on miscarriages of justice will recognise that the new clause would be an important step forward. It cannot be right that there is limited access to justice, that it is limited to those who can afford it or who have friends who are prepared to campaign for it. That is why I tabled my new clauses, which would strengthen, not weaken, the Bill. I believe that they would strengthen the judicial system and give much greater equality of access to the law for everyone, not just the rich and the famous or those who have such friends. It should be available to everybody. I think that this will be a major step toward.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I wish to give the Labour party's blessing to the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in so far as we understand their purpose, which he outlined, and their effect. If the Government feel that the effects of the new clauses go too far and if they wish to limit them in some way or to protect access to the Court of Appeal, they can, of course, do so by tabling amendments.
Essentially, we agree with my hon. Friend that the Court of Appeal should not shut the door. There is a case for access other than through the section 17 procedure. The history of the cases that form the background to the royal commission and the public concern on the matter only add weight to that. Therefore, we believe that the principle is worthy of support. The Court of Appeal already has its sifting mechanisms and sanctions, which are available. They include a single judge, at which some two thirds of applications fail. If the applications so fail, legal aid will not be available for the case thereafter. There is also the possibility of losing time.
We have only one hesitation in principle: what mechanism can one devise to deter repeated applications that are without merit? Having said that, we are inclined to support the principle of my hon. Friend's new clauses. We look forward to the Minister's reply, which we hope will be as forthcoming as that in the previous new clauses.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I welcome the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to the discussions. I certainly respect the reasons that prompted him to table his new clauses. I confess, however, to being slightly puzzled when I first saw them, because they appear to call into question the very purpose for which the commission was created. I think that the hesitation expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in that respect was entirely understandable and right.
The commission will be tasked with investigating possible miscarriages of justice and given power to refer cases, whether in relation to a conviction or sentence—or both—to the courts for them to consider at the resulting appeal. It will, essentially, be a body of last resort, whose role will begin—save in exceptional circumstances, such as when a court uses the powers introduced by clause 5 to order an investigation—when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted. I emphasise that anyone may approach the commission, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another. If the commission believes that the case meets the criteria for reference in the Bill, I know of nothing to suggest that the case will not be referred. That is the commission's role. Therefore, I have to ask what need there is to provide for the Court of Appeal to hear second, third—or more—appeals on the same conviction.
The hon. Member for Islington, North asked me about the Carl Bridgewater case. I can tell him that the police report is expected very shortly. One reason why the inquiry has been extended has been the need to consider further matters raised by the solicitors on several occasions since June 1993. We shall give a very high priority to considering that report.
I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that low-profile cases—which, I know, are the ones that he has in mind—are not ignored. No case is ignored by the Secretary of State. I know of nothing to suggest that any case will be ignored by the commission. The Secretary of State refers cases on their merits, and so will the commission. If any case meets, in the commission's view, the criteria for a reference set out in the Bill, it will be referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) was right. The new clauses would allow those who were tried originally on indictment, who had already exhausted the usual appeal procedures, to bypass the commission and to appeal again to the Court of Appeal in relation to their conviction and, subject to leave being granted, to have their appeal heard.
8.30 pm
Aside from the fact that that is unnecessary in view of the Government's decision to create the new commission, I can see other real difficulties with what the hon. Gentleman proposes. First, the new clauses would remove the concept of finality in criminal proceedings. It is essential that all cases are considered fairly, but it is also important that there is finality. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the important case of Pinfold, which established the principle that the Court of Appeal may not entertain a second application for leave to appeal in the same case. Providing what would effectively be extended rights of appeal on conviction would breach that principle.
My second concern about the new clauses is that they relate to the need for investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice, and who would be responsible for that? That is a real difficulty. Thirdly, the proposals would be bound to create confusion. Under them, applicants would be able to make representations to the court and to the commission.
We have put in the Bill a strong and effective last resort procedure in place of the powers of the Secretary of State to investigate and refer cases to the courts. A last resort procedure will be precisely that. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot support the new clauses and I invite—

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way just before completing his reply. I referred to the anomaly that in the Republic of Ireland there is a wider right of access to the Court of Appeal than there is at the moment in Northern Ireland or would be should the Bill become law. Does the Minister recognise that an obvious lesson will be drawn from that by people in Northern Ireland concerned about miscarriages of justice, possible delays by the commission or the commission not supporting or being willing to refer a case? They would have an unfettered right of access south of the border, but not north of the border.

Mr. Baker: People south of the border in Ireland would not have a commission operating in the same way that this commission will operate, which will be a real advantage for all the reasons that I have given.
Therefore, I regret again to have to ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

GROUNDS FOR ALLOWING AND DISMISSING APPEALS

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
'For the purposes of this section "unsafe" means, where in the light of representations made to the court and of all the circumstances, it is not satisfied—

(i) that the appellant is guilty of the offence; or
(ii) that a reasonable jury would have convicted the appellant if the trial had, in all respects, been conducted properly.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 15, in line 45, at end insert—
'For the purposes of this section "unsafe" means, where in the light of representations made to the court and of all the circumstances, it is not satisfied—

(i) that the appellant is guilty of the offence; or
(ii) that a reasonable jury would have convicted the appellant if the trial had, in all respects, been conducted properly.'.

Mr. Trimble: With these amendments, we come to ground on which touched on Second Reading and in Committee, although we did not have the opportunity in Committee to consider this particular measure. However, hon. Members familiar with the debate will recognise the source of the amendments in that they are drawn from the valuable and useful article by Sir John Smith, which was kindly made available to us and relied on not only by me but by members of the Labour Front Bench and the Government at various stages in the debate. It cannot be often that a draft academic article, supplied largely through the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), is quoted from so copiously in debates.
It was towards the end of Sir John Smith's article that he put forward the suggested definition of the word "unsafe". It will be of value if that definition is included in the legislation. A significant feature of the legislation is that it replaces as the ground for referring cases to the Court of Appeal the simple concept that the conviction may be unsafe.
Justice, in its briefing notes for this stage of the Bill, commenting on this subject, says:
A great deal will hinge on judicial interpretation of a single word, namely, unsafe.
It goes on:
The traditional practice already varies between the two jurisdictions of Northern Ireland and England and Wales.
That is indeed the case. There is such a variation in practice.
Justice argues:
There are significant differences of interpretation within each of those jurisdictions between different judges, particularly at the critical leave to appeal stage which is decided by a single judge on the papers, particularly on such matters as lawyers' errors. We therefore continue to argue for the legislation to signal clearly that what is required of judges is doubt as to the safety of a conviction, not certainty as to its unsafety.
That is to some extent what the amendments hope to do by inserting into the relevant legislation definitions of that single word "unsafe". At present, everything will hinge on its judicial interpretation.
There has been, as hon. Members have said, a sea change in the approach of the Court of Appeal, or some members of it in England and Wales. In Committee, the Minister said that it was the intention to consolidate that new broader approach. That is fine if the word "unsafe" is consistently given that broader interpretation. However, there is a danger that that will not happen. It is not safe in the present situation simply to rely on the assurances of some members of the judiciary, no matter how senior they may be, that the word will be given a broad interpretation.
We cannot be sure that that will be done in all cases and, speaking as a Member from Northern Ireland, I cannot be sure that the same broad interpretation will be given by the courts in Northern Ireland, particularly when the background is that the courts in Northern Ireland have not seemed to have had as thoroughgoing a sea change as the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.
It is for that reason that it is desirable to spell out in a little more detail the definition of "unsafe". That Sir John Smith did in terms that I am happy to adopt and put forward for the consideration of the House. That will help to send to the courts the clear signal that we are expecting, in the operation of the legislation, to see underwritten and, if necessary extended, the different broader approach which has been adopted in some of the more recent English cases. We hope that it is consolidated and whole-heartedly adopted in Northern Ireland.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The Bill's purpose is to provide an effective and speedy system for correcting miscarriages of justice. One limb of the Bill, at clause 2, requires the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal if it thinks that the conviction is unsafe.
At the prompting of the eminent academic, Professor Sir John Smith QC, whose reputation in the field is accepted by the Court of Appeal and senior judges, I raised a number of issues on Second Reading which, on the face of it, challenge the use of the word "unsafe". I circulated to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the professor's draft article, which also raised other issues of possible confusion.
The suggested amendment to the Bill proposed by Professor Sir John Smith has formed the amendment now proposed. However, the draft article was written in response to the Runciman royal commission's analysis of the situation, before the publication of the Bill and before our Second Reading debate. As a result of the publication of the Bill and of hearing the Second Reading speeches, Sir John has updated his version of the article and, having seen clause 4, he has added the words "of any fresh evidence" to his suggested definition of "unsafe". It now reads:
A conviction is unsafe where, in the light of representations made to the Court, of any fresh evidence, and of all the circumstances, it is not satisfied—

(i) that the appellant is guilty of the offence;
(ii) that a reasonable jury would have convicted the appellant if the trial had been properly conducted in all respects."
That addition, however, is but a detail.
What is more than a detail is what Sir John says about the substitution of the words "capable of belief" in clause 4 for "likely to be credible", the purpose of which is

apparently to lower the high test of "likely to be credible" before fresh evidence is admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to the lower test of "capable of belief", and thus to allow evidence to be admitted that might be excluded under the existing test. Sir John said in his article, although in much more elegant language, that as "credible" means "believable", according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the distinction intended to be drawn is utter nonsense.
Furthermore, Sir John says that although one can say, if one is the Court of Appeal, that some fresh evidence is "likely to be credible" before one hears it, one cannot say that it is in fact credible until it has been given and cross-examined, which would have to be after the Court of Appeal is expected to make its decision to admit it. That shows that the great academics will go on arguing about any definition that we arrive at in this place to explain further the word "unsafe".
I am caught on the horns of a dilemma on the amendment. Although I understand the point of defining "unsafe", and of making it statutory and, therefore, binding on future courts of appeal, it is obvious that definitions will not be agreed so easily. If the word is defined, I foresee long years of argument in the Court of Appeal. The Society of Conservative Lawyers wanted "lurking doubt" made statutory because the Court of Appeal did not always follow the line laid down in the early cases of Cooper and others on that phrase.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond by saying that the Lord Chief Justice is content that "unsafe" would be clear, just and comprehensible, and would enable the Court of Appeal to quash a conviction on both evidential and procedural grounds. I am not sure whether that means that, in certain cases, inadmissible evidence will be allowed to render the verdict unsafe. Apparently, we must await the Law Commission's report on the rules of evidence before that decision is reached.
Of course, a problem exists about allowing the Court of Appeal to admit evidence that is inadmissible at the trial. There is something faintly absurd about allowing evidence to be admitted in one court and not in another. Equally, there is a problem, if one wants to avoid miscarriages of justice, about allowing a person to remain convicted of crime where evidence exists of his innocence that cannot be admitted because it is hearsay, however powerful that evidence may be.
The summary of Sir John's amended article says that
the problem which will arise if the Criminal Cases Review Commission finds convictions to be unsafe on grounds which are inadmissible in evidence is more serious than has been recognised; and that the only satisfactory way to deal with the matter is to admit at the trial, subject to safeguards, any evidence, the exclusion of which might render a conviction unsafe.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the Law Commission is studying that point in relation to the hearsay rule, and hopes to produce its conclusions, I believe, by the summer.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is why I said that, apparently, we must wait for that report before the Government are minded to take any further steps.
I am driven reluctantly to conclude that the word "unsafe" undefined is as likely, because of its simplicity, to avoid a miscarriage of justice as any definition that will


be argued over by academics and judges in the Court of Appeal, indefinitely, at great cost to the criminal justice system.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs recently heard evidence from Mr. Justice Brooke, who is the distinguished chairman of the Law Commission. He says that, as an argument for codifying the criminal law, an assessment is needed of the cost of uncertain law. The permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department told the Home Affairs Select Committee not many minutes ago that he would try to assess the costs to the system of convicting people who are subsequently considered by the Court of Appeal, interpreting the meaning of words, to have been innocent in law and acquitting them—costs that will obviously turn out to be substantial to the system.
The only question in my mind is whether a future Lord Chief Justice, unfettered by a statutory definition, would adopt the same attitude as the present incumbent, who is apparently saying, "Unsafe is okay for us. The Court of Appeal will take into consideration matters of procedure and of evidence, and we need no further definitions."
This is probably a case for guidelines. But, whichever way we decide on the amendments, thankfully, there is no prospect of the work of the criminal Bar being concluded. I only hope that the resource pool from which legal aid fees are drawn never dries up.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) not only for distributing copies of the famous draft article to all relevant hon. Members, which formed the basis for discussions in Committee, but for again acting as the middleman and intermediary between Professor Sir John Smith and the House. It can hardly be satisfactory that we need such a middleman. The Bill is essentially non-partisan and cries out for consensus, and for the House to get it as right as it reasonably can, in the knowledge that such Bills come before the House only once in a generation.
Surely, rather than having an expert middleman like the hon. and learned Gentleman, on reflection this should have been a matter for a Special Standing Committee, which he, as the Chairman of the relevant Select Committee, would have chaired. It is sad that, since the inception of that new Special Standing Committee procedure in 1980, and the first flush of Special Standing Committees in the 1980–81 Session, when three Bills—the Criminal Attempts Bill, the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill and Education Bill—were discussed in that way, only three Bills have gone through that procedure. In the past 10 years, only one Bill has gone through it.
Such a procedure was set up precisely for Bills of this sort. We could well have had four such sittings prior to the Standing Committee. We could have called before the Special Standing Committee relevant practitioners and academics of the stature of Sir John Smith. As a result, we would probably have emerged, not with a higher standard of confusion about the various formulae that have been adopted but with a much clearer understanding, which would have been more likely to stand the test of time. That said, I believe that an opportunity was missed. I hope that hon. Members will be alert to the existence of the Special Standing Committee procedure and will be more ready to adopt it.
The amendments seek the objective that we sought in Committee—the definition of "unsafe" or "unsatisfactory". I accept the point that, whatever the phrase used, it is capable of widely varying interpretations depending on the tribunal that considers it. There will be no finality, because the composition of the Court of Appeal may change. Although we are told that the current formulation reflects the practice of the current Court of Appeal, we know that, just as the prevailing climate of the Court of Appeal has altered markedly over the past few years, the position could alter in future. All that the House can do, therefore, modestly recognising that there can be no finality, is to give as strong a signal as possible to the judges about our views.
I hoped that the formulation that came from the royal commission, which was accepted by the Law Society and the Bar Council, would be acceptable. It proved not to be acceptable to the Government, and they may rue that. They have said that there were wide consultations on the matter, but we are rather puzzled about that. The starting point was the royal commission and all the published evidence was in one direction. The Government talk about wide consultation, yet they have come to a view that is contrary to all the known published evidence. On the face of it, that is anti-democratic; it does not enhance the quality of debate. I repeat the point about the case for a Special Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has taken the initiative of adopting the suggestion of Professor Sir John Smith. We need inter alia to give a signal and some guidance, especially if we wish to make the test less restrictive than the old test.
In the helpful clarification given to the Committee, which is now relevant because of the Pepper v. Hart case, the Minister helpfully said:
We do not intend the test to result in fewer convictions being overturned than at present, or to narrow the grounds for allowing an appeal … I repeat what I said to make it absolutely clear: the intention is to consolidate the existing practice of the Court of Appeal and to provide as simple and clear a test as possible … The test that we propose fully allows a conviction to be quashed on a lurking doubt. The appellant does not have to prove that a conviction is unsafe; the court merely has to think that a conviction is unsafe. It would be hard to enact the lurking doubt test more explicitly."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 March 1995; c. 25.]
Those remarks will be relevant; they will be read and acted on by the Court of Appeal following the Pepper v. Hart principle. If the Government are prepared to agree that the formulation accepts the lurking doubt principle, why do they not say so explicitly? What is the mischief in accepting an amendment that would put the matter clearly in statute?
Our judgment is that we need a clearer definition for the formula. It may well be that the formula set out by Professor Sir John Smith is not wholly adequate. I hope, however, that the Government will consider the matter and come forward with a considered view. I hope that the current test of "unsafe", which is not defined and which is certainly not approved by all those whose evidence we have read, will be seen by the Minister to be insufficient. We need to give a clearer signal. We would certainly be ready to support the formulation of Professor Sir John Smith, as set out in the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Although I cannot accept everything that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said, I take his point about consensus. I do not think that, except in a very technical sense, this is a matter for a Special Standing Committee. The hon.


Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that we are giving our view to the judges. I am glad that he read out my own words which I cannot oppose. They and all our words will be read and used.
We had consultation, about which the hon. Member for Swansea, East asked. It was not, however, the case that everyone came to the same view. We came to the view that it was right to follow the royal commission in replacing the current three overlapping grounds of appeal with a single broad ground of appeal. The amendment would replace that single ground with two grounds. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has most helpfully and usefully tabled the amendment, but I see difficulties with the definition. It is possible that some of the words are restrictive. The words "a reasonable jury" invite difficulties which throw me back, as we were thrown back following the earlier consultation, on the rightness of having a single test.
In a brilliant speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has explained to us, using all his background, how academic views can change and how the discussion will go on. He raised the point about inadmissible evidence. We felt that it was necessary to preserve the option of a pardon in cases that could not be considered because of inadmissible evidence. My hon. and learned Friend is right to say that we shall wait for and carefully look at the Law Commission's report.
I come back to the approval given by the Lord Chief Justice, which I mentioned in Committee, for one test—the test of "unsafe". It is clear, just and comprehensible. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton left out the next words, which will appeal to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) as they appeal to me. The Lord Chief Justice added the words "to the ordinary citizen." If we want the system to be transparent and if we want everyone to feel that the commission is available to them, we want, as far as possible, language that the ordinary citizen can understand. I believe that the test will stand. It will, of course, depend on the judges' interpretation. It is a broad definition and I believe that we are right to stick to one test. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Trimble: I very much regret the line that the Minister has taken. To some extent, he misunderstands the position. We do not seek through the amendments to change the test; the test will be set out as "unsafe". We do not propose to alter the single ground—whether the court thinks that the conviction is "unsafe". The amendments are an attempt to spell out in a little way the meaning of "unsafe" and to suggest the broad range of things that can go to make up the definition of "unsafe".
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred to the possibility that people will argue as to what the definition of the clause and the terms in it mean and how academics may still argue about things and change their views from time to time. Well, judges may do exactly that as well.
For many years, there have been grounds on which the Court of Appeal could overturn convictions and we have seen how the approach of the Court of Appeal has varied. We are delighted to see how in recent years the approach of the Court of Appeal in England has been broader. In Committee, the Minister said that the single word "unsafe"

was intended to consolidate that approach by the Court of Appeal, by which I take it that he is referring to the recent, more liberal interpretation by the Court of Appeal in England. That shows how there has been a difference in approach.
The definition is to enable us to find a way in which to signal clearly to the judges—not only to the present Lord Chief Justice, who is apparently ready to take a good, broad, liberal view, but to all the judges, all the future judges and all the judges in Northern Ireland as well as those in England—that we want to underwrite and clarify the new, broader approach developed in some recent cases by the Court of Appeal.
I agree with the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton about inadmissible evidence. That issue must be tackled. I do not see that it is relevant to these amendments or would be a ground for turning them down. None the less, although I am not especially happy with the line that the Minister has taken—I do not think that it is particularly coherent—I do not wish to delay the proceedings. I am sure that the matter will be considered again in another place. I trust that, by then, the Government will have a slightly broader and more liberal approach. In the light of that and with that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

THE COMMISSION

9 pm

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 7, line 33, leave out '(which for this purpose' and insert
'and of them at least one shall be a person who appears to him to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland; and for the purposes of this subsection the criminal justice system'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 20, in page 7, line 35, at end insert—
'(6A) At least one of the members appointed under subsection (6) above shall be a person who appears to the prime Minister to have sufficient knowledge or experience of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.'.

Mr. Baker: During our discussions in Committee on qualification for membership of the commission, I agreed to look further at whether the Bill could be amended to provide for one member of the commission to have knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. As hon. Members know, it has always been our intention that the commission should include at least one member with just such experience and we see merit in making that clear in the Bill, not least in the light of the discussions initiated by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Amendment No. 30 is the result of our deliberations on how best to do that and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Trimble: I rise simply to thank the Minister on this occasion for accepting an amendment which I tabled in Committee. I am very glad that he has had the good sense to accept what I said. I simply regret yet again that he did not have the good sense to accept what I said a few moments ago.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT REFERENCES

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 10, line 34, leave out from first 'appeal' to 'against'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 26, in page 10, line 40, leave out from 'appeal' to 'against' in line 41.

Mr. Michael: We had quite a discussion in Committee about the limitations in clause 13 on the reference of matters to the commission. The Bill as it stands does not change the present situation—that fresh evidence is needed before the Court of Appeal can consider a further appeal in a case of alleged miscarriage of justice. The clause was changed in Committee. It was amended quite considerably, in fact, but it was not amended in the way in which the Opposition recommended. Indeed, we believe that the amendments resulted in a restriction which is far too tight.
As I said, there is a case for arguing, as the Bill now provides, that evidence which has been considered by a court should not be sufficient for the reopening of a case. There is a case to be made for perhaps allowing the court a little discretion where the commission wishes to bring matters to the court, but that is not in dispute today. We seek to remove the words from clause 13 which mean that matters which have been raised on application for leave to appeal should be sufficient to rule out further consideration. Perhaps I should express that again; it is not a simple point.
The clause as redrafted in Committee is so tight that, if an issue has been raised or evidence has been brought forward during an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal, it cannot be used in arguing the case for investigation by the commission and subsequent appeal by the Court of Appeal. That seems too tight and restrictive. Therefore, it seems sensible to remove those words, which is precisely what our amendments do.
In clause 13, line 34, we would leave out the words that effectively mean that evidence has been raised
on any appeal on application for leave to appeal against, the conviction, verdict or finding.
It is not a vast widening of the powers of the courts to consider fresh matters where the commission considers that they should be so considered, but it would avoid a restriction which may in the fullness of time be seen to be unnecessarily tight and to prevent reference to the Court of Appeal and consideration by the Court of Appeal of cases where there is manifestly real concern that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
In view of the importance of restoring confidence in the court system and in the criminal justice system, we think that clause 13 constitutes one step too far, one restriction too tight, and that the Minister would be well advised to reconsider the amendments which were made in Committee and to allow the simple and modest change sought in amendments Nos. 23 and 26.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Clause 13 provides that there should be some new element for the courts to consider before a referral of a conviction, verdict, finding or

sentence may be made by the commission. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that that makes the criteria within which the commission must operate narrow and restrictive. I am afraid that I cannot accept that, and I reject it.
The criteria provided in the Bill are wide and sensible. They enable the boundaries between the commission's functions and those of the courts to be clearly defined. Indeed, we believe that the criteria as drafted are broad enough to allow the commission to refer any conviction, verdict or finding where there is new evidence or new argument in relation to any evidence which may have already been raised which is of sufficient weight, bearing in mind the context of the case as a whole, to give rise to a real possibility of the appeal being allowed.
The amendments seek to exclude, from the definition of matters already raised within the terms of clause 13, any matters raised only in an application for leave to appeal. We do not think that that would be right. If the matters raised as grounds for appeal are rejected by the single judge, the applicant can renew his application to a full court. If they are then rejected by the full court, what useful purpose would be served by the commission's referring the case to a court on those same grounds—unless there were some new evidence or argument for the court to consider?
Were some new evidence or argument to come to light, and were the commission to consider that the case met the criteria for referral, it could be referred anyway, using the criteria that we have provided. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

Mr. Michael: The Minister has misunderstood the whole position, and has taken an excessively legalistic approach to a commonsense amendment. He said that there must be some new element for the court to consider. In other words, if the courts have considered something once, that is not new. But our amendments do not contradict that idea. We say that, although an element is not new if it has been considered by a court, it may be new if it has been considered only during the course of an application for leave to appeal.
The Government's approach is unduly restrictive, and the Minister's analysis of the position is wrong, as is his response to this brief debate. He should think again, because I have no doubt that the Government will be invited to think again when the clause is debated in another place. Between now and then, the Minister would be well advised to consider the points that I have made, as well as what was said by several Members in Committee in a rather wider-ranging debate on how closely it is appropriate to restrict the commission.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15

ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH PREROGATIVE OF MERCY

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 12, line 38, at end insert—
'(2) Where in any case the Commission are of the opinion that the Secretary of State should consider whether to recommend the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy in relation to the case they shall give him the reasons for their opinion.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 16

POWER TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS ETC

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 12, line 44, leave out
'The Commission may, where it is reasonable to do so,'

and insert
'Where it is reasonable to do so, the Commission may'.

No. 33, in page 13, line 5, at end insert
'and may direct that person that the document or other material must not be destroyed, damaged or altered before the direction is withdrawn by the Commission.'.[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 19

INQUIRIES BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 15, line 19, leave out from 'may' to end of line 21 and insert
'take any steps which they consider appropriate for supervising the undertaking of inquiries by an investigating officer.'.

No. 35, in page 15, line 21, at end insert—
'(4A) The Commission may at any time direct that a person appointed as the investigating officer in relation to a case shall cease to act as such; but the making of such a direction shall not prevent the Commission from imposing a requirement under section 18 to appoint another investigating officer in relation to the case.'.

No. 36, in page 15, line 27, at end add—
'(6) When a person appointed as the investigating officer in relation to a case submits to the Commission a report of his findings he shall also submit to them any statements and opinions obtained, and any reports commissioned, in connection with the inquiries which he was directed to undertake in relation to the case.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 20, line 10, after 'appoint', insert 'subject to subsection 1A'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 6, in page 20, line 11, at end add—
'(1A) The powers of the Commission in sections 9 to 13 of this Act to investigate any sentence given by a Court shall not come into force until a draft regulation setting out a timetable for their implementation has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and no such draft regulation shall be laid before either House of Parliament until at least twelve months after the Commission has been established.'.

No. 40, in page 20, line 11, at end add—
'(1B) Any power in this section of this Act to make regulations or orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.'.

No. 39, in page 20, line 11, at end add—
'(1C) Until such time as the powers of the Commission referred to in subsection (1A) above have come into force, transitional arrangements shall operate as laid out in subsection (1D) below.'.

No. 41, in page 20, line 11, at end add—
'(1D) In section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (supplementary provisions as to appeals against sentence) after subsection (1A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1AA) The Court of Appeal may, if they think it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, grant leave to appeal against sentence notwithstanding that a previous application to appeal has been determined (either by refusal of leave or after a substantive hearing) in respect of the same sentence.".'.

Mr. Michael: The clauses with which we are dealing give the commission powers to investigate sentences. Everybody who has been involved with the campaigns to establish a body to deal with miscarriages of justice is

puzzled and bemused by the Government's decision to give such powers to the commission, and subsequently to the courts—but especially to the commission.
In Committee, we received no satisfactory answer as to why the power had been given. When we asked whether such a power would not clog up the whole system, there was no answer to that, either. Anyone who has dealt with any seriousness with the prison system, and has experience of talking to prisoners, knows that there is much resentment among prisoners about sentences, and a great wish to have them changed. Sentences are one of the issues that cause the greatest amount of debate and discussion.
The amendments would provide a cushion, or safety valve, because they would allow the Government to keep in the Bill a provision that we believe is unnecessary and possibly ill advised, but they would also provide for a delay in the implementation of the provision for reconsidering sentences.
During the interim period, it will be possible to see what sort of burden of work is being put on to the commission, and whether it has the capacity to deal with the additional burdens imposed by a provision that was not sought or recommended by the royal commission and has not been mentioned in the general debate on the type of body that should be established to investigate miscarriages of justice.
The idea seems to have arisen from a desire to deal with the interests of the Home Office, rather than to fulfil the prime responsibility under the Bill, which is to establish a proper mechanism for dealing with allegations that miscarriages of justice have taken place.
Amendment No. 6 says that the powers that the Government seek, which we suggested in Committee should not be among the provisions of the Bill, should not come into force until draft regulations setting out a timetable for implementation have been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and that no such draft regulations should be laid by either House until at least 12 months after the commission has been established.
The point is that, during that 12 months, the commission can become established. It will be for Ministers to assess the work load. If we are wrong and the commission is not overloaded, Ministers will surely go ahead at that stage. If we have been right, Ministers will be able to control the situation. Either way, Ministers would lose nothing by accepting our amendments, and would gain a great deal in terms of flexibility and the capacity to avoid dangers that may arise.
9.15 pm
Amendments Nos. 39 and 41 establish transitional powers, and respond to points made by Ministers during the debate in Committee. They suggested that, if there was a delay in the provision of these powers or if they were not provided at all, there would be an anomaly. So the transitional arrangements which are effectively contained in amendment No. 41 will allow the Court of Appeal, if the court thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, to grant leave to appeal against sentence, notwithstanding that a previous application to appeal has been determined. So it allows for that arrangement to take place.
In Committee, we had a comparatively short debate, in which the Minister was not able to set out good reasons for including sentence within the burdens to be placed on the new commission. It is surely a matter of common knowledge that the royal commission concentrated on miscarriages of justice, and that that led the royal commission to recommend the establishment of the body that we are creating in the Bill.
In his response to the Committee debate, the Minister said:
I acknowledge that the royal commission did not recommend that the commission should refer sentences to the courts—in fact, it did not mention the matter."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 March 1995; c.109.]
It did not mention the matter, because it was not a matter of general concern, contention or belief on the part of those who had taken an extended interest in the whole matter.
The power which the Home Secretary has at present to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal can be dealt with in a variety of ways. Those matters are already dealt with. I will not repeat the points that were made in Committee, but there are mechanisms for dealing with those matters. The Court of Appeal has powers. There is no reason to burden the commission, particularly in its early days, when it has a backlog of alleged miscarriages of justice to deal with, before it becomes established as a body with a more predictable work load.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. They do not detract from or diminish the powers contained in the Bill. They provide a cushion, and ensure that those powers are not acted on precipitately or without evidence that the commission will be able to cope with the additional work load involved.

Mr. Maclean: During our debate in Committee, I set out in full the Government's reasons why we thought that the approach taken by the Opposition was misguided. There was a fundamental disagreement between us. The Opposition did not like the arguments that I advanced. I have no new arguments to advance tonight, because the ones that I gave in Committee were sensible and serious, and I will stick to them, but briefly.
The Government gave a good deal of thought to the future arrangements for dealing with wrongful sentences when drawing up their proposals for legislation in this area. One option that we considered was to provide extended rights of appeal to the courts, but we rejected this for several reasons.
First was the need to maintain some finality in criminal proceedings. If we were to provide extended rights of appeal on sentence of the sort that Opposition Members propose, the principle of finality established in the case of Pinfold would be breached, and the courts could well find themselves inundated with unmeritorious applications, with all the consequential delay and disruption which that would cause. Applicants would go on appealing ad nauseam to the courts. That cannot be right.
Secondly, it would be wrong, in our view, to provide extended rights of appeal on sentence while still requiring those alleging wrongful conviction to be referred to the new, more powerful commission before their cases could be reconsidered by the courts.
Thirdly, representations on sentence, as on wrongful conviction, often require some investigation. If the courts receive these applications, they will either require

time-consuming hearings, or the applications will be dismissed on paper, at the risk of important points being missed or discounted.
Last but not least, if we were to accede to what the Opposition propose, there would be further scope for confusion, as, in making representations, some applicants raise points on both their conviction and their sentence. The amendments would result in such cases being simultaneously pursued in the Court of Appeal and investigated by the commission.
Although I understand that the Opposition's desire in proposing the amendment is genuine, it is misguided. It ignores the fact that the commission will be an investigative body, resourced and empowered to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. The Government believe that they are the persons best placed to look into possible wrongful sentences and refer them if appropriate.
That is the most sensible and cost-effective solution to the problem of who should deal with these matters following the abolition of the Secretary of State's powers. It simply does not make sense to take away the vast bulk of cases that come before my right hon. and learned Friend on conviction, to set up a powerful new independent commission to deal with them, and then to say, "Never mind, the Secretary of State can be trusted to deal with the handful of cases left on sentencing, and we shall ignore the new commission." It must be sensible to let the commission deal with those cases.
I explained in Committee the size of the work load that we envisage. I have nothing more to add to that. We do not envisage a large work load for those sentence cases. The powers provided in the Bill should be available to the commission from the beginning of its operation, so that it can do the full range of its work as quickly and effectively as possible. I do not propose that the commission be delayed for 12 months before having those powers.
For those reasons—the same as I advanced more fully in Committee—I cannot support the amendments.

Mr. Michael: I am surprised by the Minister's response, because he has had time to reflect on the debate that we had in Committee.
One barrister has expressed the concern that the clause gives an applicant the unfettered right to apply to the commission for his sentence to be referred to the Court of Appeal. He said that applicants are not restricted to matters which were known to the sentencing judge, or arguably should have been known then, or to the need to have exhausted the normal routes of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
From his response, the Minister clearly does not understand the Pandora's box that he is opening in giving the body that has been established to deal with allegations of miscarriages of justice, the responsibility to deal with problems and complaints about the weight of sentence. There is no body of existing law to help the commission or the Court of Appeal to assess the reductions that might be appropriate in a variety of circumstances.
The Minister has not said whether it is intended that the commission can refer sentences on the grounds that they are manifestly excessive or would need reviewing in the light of changed circumstances since a sentence was passed, or only on the narrow grounds of wrong facts or misinterpretation of the law at the time of sentencing. If


it is the latter, would it not be better to signal that in the Bill, to avoid confusion and a rush of unmeritorious applications?
The Minister has not taken on board the points that were seriously made by a variety of hon. Members in Committee. It is clear from his response today that he has given the matter no fresh thought. This will be a matter of debate in another place. Yet again, the Government will be well advised to consider carefully the arguments which the Opposition advanced in Committee and to think again.
It would be a tragedy if the body established to rescue our criminal justice system from the problems that have arisen due to miscarriages of justice, which is being established to restore confidence in the criminal justice system and provide confidence that miscarriages of justice can and will be dealt with properly, were constrained and overwhelmed with a number of applications on sentence.
The Home Secretary's power to review and refer with regard to sentence has been a relatively little-known power. It will inevitably be used more by the commission than it has by the Home Secretary. I hope that I am wrong, and that the commission will not be burdened as a result of this element in the Bill, but I fear that the Minister is wrong, and that, by his failure even to allow the cushion and protection that we offer in the amendments, he will build up problems for the future.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1

THE COMMISSION: FURTHER PROVISIONS.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 22, line 32, leave out 'and' and insert 'or
(aa) in the case of a function specified in sub-paragraph (3A), by any committee of, or by one or more of the members of the Commission, and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 39, at end insert—
'(3A) The functions referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(aa) are

(a) requiring the production of documents or other material under section 16,
(b) requiring the appointment of investigating officers under section 18,
(c) giving directions to investigating officers under section 19.'.

Mr. Trimble: With these amendments, we come to provisions in the schedule that relate to the way in which the commission will discharge its functions. The amendments relate to an issue that I mentioned in Committee, in respect of which I was glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has also signed the amendment being considered this evening.
We were worried that the provisions in paragraph 6 of schedule 1 are designed in such a way that, whereas the primary functions of the commission, such as that of referring a case to the Court of Appeal, can be discharged only by the commission as a whole or by a committee consisting of not fewer than three members, any other function of the commission can be discharged by a committee or one or more members or an employee, so

that, under the schedule, a range of important functions of the commission can be discharged by an employee. It seemed to me that that was not appropriate.
We mentioned the matter in Committee, and had the opportunity since Committee to table what I hope are amendments on which the Minister will look favourably. Of the functions that I have singled out in amendment No. 29, functions such as requiring the production of documents from other organisations, requiring the appointment of an investigating officer and giving directions to investigating officers, should not be dischargeable by an employee of the commission. They should be discharged through the commission, or at least a member of the commission.
I know that there is a provision in the schedule that those functions can be conducted
under the general direction of the Commission"—
in other words, the commission can give general direction as to the way in which its employees are to discharge functions. But that does not satisfactorily answer the question about functions such as that of appointing an investigating officer.
Earlier, we had a debate about the provisions in clause 18 concerning the way in which investigating officers will be apppointed. The Minister of State laid great emphasis on the power of the commission to control and direct the conduct of investigations and to control the choice of who was to be appointed as an investigating officer. Yet when one reads the schedule, one discovers that those powers—control, supervision and direction and requiring appointments—can be exercised by an employee without the specific decision going through a commissioner. That is unsatisfactory.
I very much hope that the commission will not in practice avail itself of the tremendous width that paragraph 6 of the schedule affords. It would not be good practice for any type of commission to avail itself of those broad powers.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on those amendments, which are sensible amendments to ensure that important functions are discharged, and that each specific exercise of them is under the control of the commission or, at the very least, a member of the commission.

Mr. Hutton: I shall not detain the House long, but I want to say one or two words about the amendments, which are simple but important. Before I do so, I wish to express my appreciation of the role that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) played in Committee. He tabled several important and useful amendments, such as those that we are discussing.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a fundamental issue. Obviously everyone wants the commission to work effectively, with the maximum flexibility. No one wants to place the commission in a straitjacket. We are discussing important powers—powers that might loosely be described as quasi-judicial. They relate to the appointment of investigating officers, the way in which the investigating officers are to perform and discharge their functions and responsibilities, and several another aspects.
Clause 20, which is not referred to in our amendment, gives the commission any other residual power that it considers it may appropriately take in relation to any inquiry. The amendments raise a very simple question:


why should those important powers be administered by an individual employee of the commission? The answer is that they should not.
It is clear in paragraph 6 of the schedule that there has been an attempt to rein in those powers by making employees subject to the general direction of the commission. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said, that is unlikely to be adequate to deal with the range and complexity of cases that may confront the commission. The acts of individual employees will be scrutinised or investigated ex post facto—after the event. I do not think that that is good enough; it would be too late.
9.30 pm
I think that it would be better if that part of the schedule specified in greater detail that those important powers should be exercised only by a committee of commission members or possibly by one commission member and not by individual employees. I do not think that that places an unreasonable restraint upon the commission's flexibility—far from it. I think that it will make the commission's important powers transparent and accountable to those people who are supposed to be responsible for their discharge—the commission members.
If that is not good enough for the Government, I ask the Minister to reflect on another point. We debated in Committee another aspect of the schedule concerning the commission's power to appoint employees. The Government insisted on amending the original draft of the Bill to refer to a chief executive of the commission. That employee is mentioned briefly in the schedule and his powers and general role and responsibility within the commission are not specified.
If the Minister is content with employees exercising powers—even some of the more important powers, such as those referred to in clause 20—I hope that he will consider reserving the responsibility for discharging some powers to the chief executive at least.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We had a good debate about this matter in Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive my fairly brief reply.
I respect the fact that the commission has been given very wide-ranging powers. In the schedule, we have provided some guidelines as to how commission members should exercise those functions. However, I think that we should resist the temptation referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)—many of whose comments I had great sympathy with—to get too involved statutorily with the workings and the management of the commission.
I accepted the advice of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) earlier in the evening, and I am sorry that I cannot do so again in this case. We do not believe that the amendments that he has proposed are helpful to the commission—indeed, in one instance they could only confuse, and possibly weaken, the measures that we have provided to ensure that the commission's key decisions are taken at a proper level.
According to amendment No. 29, the decision requiring an investigating officer to be appointed under clause 18 should be made by one member of the commission acting on his own. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that that is a key decision. We recognise that fact, and we have provided that such decisions should be taken by a

committee of not fewer than three members. In so far as paragraph 6(3)(d) is untouched, the amendment would lead to confusion between the two provisions.
The hon. Gentleman's amendments are not helpful, because I believe that they would inevitably slow the speed at which the work would be undertaken. The commission must set the policy and decide what activities should be delegated to which members of staff. I emphasise that that is a perfectly normal arrangement, which is common to perhaps all public bodies and most public sector companies.
I do not see why it should be wrong for the commission—which, in many ways, we have circumvented with very tough controls in the Bill—to be empowered to act in managing its affairs. For example, preparing papers, obtaining transcripts of court cases and other management details can be undertaken perfectly well by the commission's own staff who are acting within the guidelines and under the direction of commission members. For those reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for pointing out that provision in respect of the appointment of investigating officers. I am delighted to see that it is included in paragraph 6(3). I am glad that the Department considers it important enough to ensure that that function is not discharged by an employee.
I am sorry that the Minister did not appreciate that the same argument should apply to giving directions under clause 19 or the production of documents under clause 16. I can only express the hope that the commission will consist of people of considerable ability and merit, and that they do not avail themselves of, or allow their employees to use, the wide powers and great flexibility that the Minister has provided. The measure would not work well in practice if they did. In view of that, we must hope that the commission is more sensible than I regret the Minister has been.
In view of the lateness of the hour and the desire of hon. Members to contribute to the next stage, I do not intend to comment further or to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am pleased to have played a part in guiding the Bill through the House. The Criminal Appeal Bill is creating new and independent machinery for identifying possible miscarriages of justice and referring them to the courts and reinforcing and extending the power of the courts in criminal appeals. It is a measure of great importance.
Hon. Members have rightly emphasised the importance, in dealing with possible miscarriages of justice, of procedures whose independence is beyond question. Those procedures must also be effective in securing the aim of getting to the heart of cases which continue to raise doubts after the normal processes of trial and appeal have finished.
The changes made to the Bill do not affect its basic structure and thrust. They strengthen it and enhance the powers of the commission to do its work. The Bill is now in even better and more effective shape than when it started. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and I am convinced that the Bill will make a significant contribution to the quality of the criminal justice system in future. I wish it well as it goes to another place.

Mr. Michael: I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that we have been able to make some improvements to the Bill in Committee and today, but it would be wrong to allow the Bill to pass without comment. It is an important measure in restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and it is important that we get it right. If the body that is established under the Bill fails to win the confidence that is so desperately needed, it will be even more difficult to restore confidence in future.
This body will deal with alleged miscarriages of justice and restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and that system's capacity to deal with miscarriages. Its birth has been extremely slow. The Opposition have been calling for the establishment of such a body for a number of years and it now comes with high expectations.
I am concerned about some of the difficulties and shortcomings that remain in the Bill. I am also concerned that some of the comments by a Minister earlier in today's debate suggest that the aspirations that we thought were shared on all sides are not shared by the Government and that the Government intend that the body should be constrained and should almost do the job on the cheap to an extent that certainly is not in accordance with the views expressed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. That body referred to the need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and pointed out that the majority of trials are conducted in a manner that all participants regard as fair. It added:
But the damage done by the minority of cases which the system is seen to have failed is out of all proportion to their number.
It referred also to the burden of work that will fall on the new body. Paragraph 6 of chapter 11 stated:
There is in theory no restriction on the numbers or categories of cases which the Home Secretary may refer to the Court of Appeal under section 17 since the section gives him discretion to refer cases 'if he thinks fit'. In practice, however, as Sir John May observed in his second report on the Maguire case, the Home Secretary and the civil servants advising him operate within strict self-imposed limits.
Paragraph 7 stated:
The effect of this second criterion was examined in depth by Sir John May as part of his inquiry into the Maguires. We cannot do better than quote his conclusion.
I invite the House to consider that conclusion:
There is no doubt that the criterion so defined was and is a limiting one and has resulted in the responsible officials within the Home Office taking a substantially restricted view of cases to which their attention has been drawn … The very nature and terms of the self-imposed limits on the Home Secretary's power to refer cases have led the Home Office only to respond to the representations which have been made to it in relation to particular convictions rather than to carry out its own investigations into the circumstances

of a particular case or the evidence given at trial … the approach of the Home Office was throughout reactive. It was never thought proper for the Department to become proactive.
It is necessary for the new body to take on board the capacity to investigate where there is concern over alleged miscarriages. In view of today's exchanges, there will be debates in the other place to ensure that the Government fully understand the need for a proactive body.
Page 185 of the royal commission report refers to the need for the capacity to investigate:
In our view the Authority should be able to discuss cases direct with applicants if it thinks that this would help it to decide whether a case called for further investigation. It has struck us forcibly that many people who believe that they are victims of miscarriages of justice feel that they have a right to be heard and are frustrated by the fact that they have been unable to put their case in person to the Home Office officials who are considering it. We understand the resource constraints that have prevented the Home Office from interviewing applicants, and we accept that this could not be done in every case. We nevertheless recommend that the Authority be adequately resourced to conduct interviews with prisoners where it believes that this might help. It is not always possible for people who have suffered a miscarriage of justice and then been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment to set out their case clearly and cogently in writing, and an interview may sometimes be the best way of convincing the Authority that the case is one that is worth investigation.
Earlier, the Minister suggested that no cases were waiting to be investigated. I believe that there are, and give the example of my constituent Mr. Mike O'Brien. For the avoidance of doubt, again I make clear that he is not the same Mike O'Brien as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North. He contacted many people, including every Member of Parliament, to assert his innocence. I do not assert his innocence unconditionally, but I am convinced that something needs to be investigated in that case. The commission's establishment will enable investigations in that and like cases.
It is not satisfactory that Ministers appear to have resiled from acknowledging the importance of that role. There is also some inadequacy in dealing with the need for a knowledge or understanding of mental disorders, mental illness or adults with learning difficulties, who are often among the victims of miscarriages of justice. That aspect was dealt with briefly in Committee and there has not been an opportunity to debate it fully on Report. Those issues need to be dealt with fully. I hope that they will be dealt with in another place, and that the Government will make some concessions.
Finally there is the whole issue of disclosure. Members and officials of the commission will be subject to restrictions on their disclosure of information and of evidence. There have been exchanges as a result of the letter from Justice and of the reply from the Minister, a copy of which, further to his promise in Committee, he has kindly provided me with. That still leaves questions to be answered if we are to be sure that there will be full and adequate disclosure to enable all serious allegations of miscarriage of justice to be properly dealt with. If they are, that will help to restore confidence in our criminal justice system—a process that the Opposition believe to be thoroughly necessary. Evidence of the need for that restoration of confidence is provided by the many cases in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others have been involved over the years.
We wish success to the commission that will be established under the Bill. We also wish the Bill a successful passage through another place, where we hope that more improvements to it will be made. When the Bill returns to us I trust that many of our reservations about its effectiveness will have been dispelled.

Mr. Beith: Now that the Bill has nearly completed its Commons stages, and bearing in mind the strong possibility that it may be significantly improved in another place, where I expect it to attract a great deal of close and careful interest, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish the new commission every success in its work. I attach great importance to the added public confidence that its work could bring to the police and criminal justice system. I believe that we may have to revisit some of these issues at some stage—especially the capacity of the commission to mount independent investigations in certain cases. Certainly its task will be an important one. We wait with interest to know who will carry out the work and bear these important responsibilities.
I strongly welcome the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Mullin: I am glad to see the Bill approaching the statute book. I was also glad to see the Government accept amendment No. 35, which strengthens the powers of the commission—although it does not go far enough. I made my views on that known earlier this afternoon.
I welcome the Home Secretary—belatedly—to his place in the Chamber, and I draw his attention to some remarks by Lord Runciman which I quoted earlier. I shall not repeat them now, but they were to the effect that nothing in the proposal for a dedicated force of investigators contradicted what he and his colleagues in the royal commission asked for.
One or two other reservations of mine have been touched on today. I do hope that arrangements applying to Scotland will be made soon, because there are quite a number of problems up there. I am also a little worried that the terms of reference might be interpreted as being unnecessarily restrictive. That could lead to some disputes between the commission and the Court of Appeal.
The success of the whole enterprise will largely depend not on anything in the Bill but on the personnel put on the commission. A former Tory Home Secretary told me some time ago that those people would not be like the usual ones who are put on Tory quangos—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: You should be on it.

Mr. Mullin: I am not interested. I have been doing the job for the past few years anyway, and to be perfectly honest I am getting rather fed up with it.
We really will require people who are a cut above the usual quango appointments, because they will have to confront, at some stage, mighty vested interests among the police and in the Court of Appeal. The success of the Bill will also depend on a continuing improvement in the attitude displayed by the new management at the Court of Appeal. Many hon. Members have remarked on an improvement of attitude following the change of personnel in that court—but they could of course change back again. The suspicion has been voiced to me that the recent liberalisation may in some way be affected by the fear that something more drastic might be done to limit its powers.
I recall that when the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested such a commission in 1982, an idea that the Government rejected, the Lord Chief Justice promised that the Court of Appeal would be more open minded when considering appeals, a promise on which he promptly reneged once the threat of such a commission had disappeared over the horizon. I therefore hope that the attitude of the new management of the Court of Appeal will last.
I regret that it is still an unhappy fact of life that someone who believes himself to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice is better off approaching a journalist than a policeman or lawyer. I hope that those days are over, although, even as we sit here, Channel 4 is showing a programme on the Brian Parsons case, which is one of the more serious outstanding alleged miscarriages of justice. There will always be a role in a free country for an inquiring journalist.
Since the release of the Birmingham Six, I have received several thousand letters from several hundred prisoners who allege that they are the victims of miscarriages of justice. There is a limit to what one can do to advise them. Organisations such as Justice have also received large numbers of representations from prisoners, far more than I could possibly cope with and no doubt far more than Justice can cope with. I hope that the Bill marks an end to this chapter in my correspondence and, I hasten to add, so does my secretary.
I also hope that the Bill marks an end to an unhappy period in the history of the British judicial system and that we can look forward to a greatly improved system in which everyone can have confidence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITIONS

Mr. Kevin Maxwell

Mr. Robert Jackson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Kevin Maxwell, who is being tried on a count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law.
My constituent desires in his petition that reference be made in the proceedings that he will face
to certain evidence and related material of the Select Committees on Social Security in the present and the previous Parliament which has not been reported to the House and which has not been published.
Your Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons will give leave for said records, transcripts, documents, correspondence and notes … to be produced to the Hon Mr. Justice Phillips at the Central Criminal Court so that he may decide if the documents should under normal common law principles be disclosed to the parties in the trial; and if the Hon Mr. Justice Phillips so decides, the Court be permitted to make reference to them.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I give notice that I intend to table a motion forthwith to give effect to this petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Schools (Darlington)

Mr. Alan Milburn: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 2,000 of my constituents who are alarmed at the impact of Government funding cuts on local schools. It has been signed by parents, governors and teachers, including head teachers, who are concerned about rising class sizes, the threat to teachers' jobs and diminishing school budgets. They are angry that Government policies are threatening children's education in Darlington. I hope that the Government will act swiftly in response to my constituents' concerns.
The petitioners request that
the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education to immediately review her policies to ensure that Darlington schools are not prevented from offering children the highest possible educational standards.

To lie upon the Table.

Rwanda

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: I had no idea, when I put my name into the ballot for an Adjournment debate, that the theme of the Government's policy in Rwanda would become so tragically relevant after the events of the past weekend in Kibeho camp. It was because I feared such an event that I put my name in. It was an event that could have been anticipated. I shall ask a great many questions during the debate. I realise that the Minister will not be able to answer them all, but I hope that—perhaps by letter afterwards—I will get a reply to the questions that I raise.
Let me deal with the events of the weekend. It will never be clear how many people were slaughtered, but it was clearly thousands. One can only deplore the attempt by the Government of Rwanda to minimise and disguise that death toll. The international community now has to demand that those responsible for the carnage are brought to trial as rapidly as possible. It is clear that the slaughter was conducted by the army of Rwanda and that the army officers responsible must be punished. The silence of the Vice-President of Rwanda, General Kagame, who is also the Defence Minister, is disturbing. He is also seen as the major power within the country.
I met General Kagame when he visited London a few months ago. Perhaps the Minister did as well. At that time, General Kagame was seeking the assistance of the international community in setting up a judicial system to bring the Hutu perpetrators of genocide to trial. He quite correctly said that, unless the people of Rwanda could see the perpetrators of genocide brought to justice within Rwanda, the country would never be able to come to terms with itself. At that time, he was talking about the Hutu killers, but he now has to ensure that the Tutsi perpetrators of the latest massacre are brought to justice. I understand fully the difficulties of the Government of Rwanda in dealing with armed militia within the camp, but the test of that Government will be how they deal with their own offenders.
Overwhelmingly, the blame for the situation in Rwanda must lie with the leaders of Rwanda itself, and they must shoulder that responsibility, but there is a wider responsibility in a world in which that desperately poor and overcrowded country is not helped to join in the prosperity and development that should be part of the lives of its people.
We must also face up to the fact that European colonialism, which used the tribes of Africa for its own selfish reasons, has left a legacy of infinitely worsened community relations. The legacy—in this case, of Belgium and France—is grim. Every involvement that they have with Rwanda and Burundi is tarnished, and there is a need for us to increase our leadership at the Security Council. I can understand why we argued at the beginning that it was not an area of our concern or a traditional sphere of influence for us, but unless some countries with unblemished hands take a lead, the situation will become worse.
I want to make it clear that I sought this debate not because of humanitarian aid. I do not wish to attack the Government for failing to supply aid, water, food or

shelter. That is clearly not true. The British contribution has been good. It was slow, but it has been good and of high quality. That is not the point of the debate. I am concerned not with the performance of the British Overseas Development Administration but with that of the Foreign Office. There is a major distinction. While talking about aid, I want to pay tribute, as I am sure that the Minister would, to the immense contribution made by our aid agencies, for the immensely skilled and courageous work that they are doing in bringing food, water and shelter to the victims of those horrors.
There seems to be an inability, because of lack of political will, for the United Nations, and that means overwhelmingly the permanent members of the Security Council, to take the actions that are necessary to avoid those catastrophes. Undoubtedly, the horrors of Rwanda could have been prevented or at least diminished. There are further horrors around the corner either in Rwanda or Burundi, of that I am convinced. Shall we act to stop those horrors?
It is interesting—that is a neutral word—that the Aid Commissioner in Brussels, Emma Bonino, is recommending with her colleagues the cutting off of non-humanitarian aid to Rwanda. In the papers this morning, the recommendation that was said to be emerging was that humanitarian aid would be cut. It is no better that humanitarian aid is not being cut. The implications of that recommendation—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Worthington: The recommendation that there should be a cutting of non-humanitarian aid is simply calamitous. I hope that the Minister will clarify what is happening.
Non-humanitarian aid can be used for things such as setting up the judicial system, schools and clinics or remedying the appalling lack of infrastructure. Non-humanitarian aid is a sign of medium and long-term political will by the rest of the international community. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the British response to the EC Commission's recommendation will be hostile. I noted today in a press release put out by the noble Baroness Chalker the statement that the United Kingdom has fulfilled all its pledges to help Rwanda towards rehabilitation and reconstruction.
The United Kingdom and European Union would not be fulfilling their pledges towards rehabilitation and reconstruction were the recommendation of the EC Commission to be accepted. I strongly recommend to Commissioner Bonino and all her colleagues that she would be better occupied in finding out why there has been a lack of political commitment to solving the problems of Rwanda than in tampering with aid. I strongly suggest that she should look at the role of France and Belgium in that respect and find out what can be done to obtain a consistent European contribution to the solution of the problems of Rwanda.
It is transparently clear that the need to establish a judicial system is paramount, but only yesterday we had an announcement from New York about the appointment of 12 judges to start the work of the genocide trials. That is welcome, but there has also been talk about the need for 600 magistrates to tackle the problems of Rwanda.
The situation in Kigame prison is totally untenable. The prison was built to hold 2,000 people, but now has more than 8,000 people in it without anyone being charged or any dates in prospect for action. When we neglect that situation, we promote the sort of slaughter that we saw at the weekend. That is the sin of neglect.
Why is it that stimulators and perpetrators of genocide, such as the director of Radio Mille Collines and other prominent supporters of the previous Government, are allowed to live in luxury and walk the streets of other African countries such as Kenya and Cameroon? In February, the programme director of Radio Mille Collines gave an interview in Cameroon on French television. For 24 hours a day, that radio station repeatedly incited murders of Tutsis and drew up an endless list of wanted opponents. Why are such people allowed to wander free? One year after the genocide, not one single person among the politicians who masterminded it has been brought to justice.
What will the Government do to expedite the work of the genocide tribunal? Is it really realistic to ask the remarkable Judge Goldstone, whom I have met—his contribution to the development of South Africa has been astonishing—to supervise the genocide tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda? There is a lack of credibility about that.
On the issue of slowness of action, when the Hutu militias set themselves up in the camp to terrorise people, why was it not possible to stop them becoming established and preventing an orderly return to Rwanda? When more than 60 countries were asked to contribute forces to the policing of camps, why was the only offer from Zaire, whose forces, to put it mildly, are not known for their reliability? The reason why other troops were not offered was the chaos of the United Nations.
Concerns exist about the role of President Mobutu. In February, "Africa Confidential" reported that he accompanied the widow of the former President of Rwanda to China on an arms buying spree. Is that true? UN Security Council resolution 918 imposes an arms embargo in the region, but it is simply being ignored. Will the Government confirm that that is so? If the permanent five on the Security Council had made a commitment and given support, the situation could have been stabilised, and intimidation stopped. We now have an incomparably worse position because of the failure to take simple action to prevent military organisation in those camps. The military training camps are being fed by our aid.
I want to hear what the Government's policy is in Rwanda in the medium and long term, as against simply giving aid. We must face up to the scale of the disruption in central Africa. Perhaps 2 million recent Rwandan refugees are in neighbouring countries such as Zaire, Tanzania and Burundi. Imagine the tension among local people living next to camps of hundreds of thousands of people who receive guaranteed food when they have nothing. Those are desperately poor countries with their own problems. There is no way that they can cope without the help of the prosperous world. We cannot go on ignoring that. If we perpetuate that sin of neglect, it will cost us more and more.
A huge regional problem affects Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania and Zaire. Last year, those nations and the northern powers such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Germany agreed about the need for a regional conference to attempt to tackle those hideous problems, but what has happened? In November, our representative at the UN Security Council, Mr. Gomersall, said that the proposed regional conference could play an important role, and that he hoped that all concerned would work to ensure that it was held as soon as possible. Six months later, I am not aware of any progress being made towards the holding of that conference.
We need real commitment to solve Rwanda's problems. It was gratifying that, in January, the donors pledged nearly $600 million, but what has happened to those pledges? What money have we and others committed and actually delivered? The UN underperforms because we allow it to do so and because of our lack of commitment.
That takes me back to the initial response to the Rwandan debacle. I remember the sense of shame when, following the death of Belgium paratroopers, UNAMIR—the United Nations Mission in Rwanda—forces were reduced to 270. Following the genocide, it was decided to increase forces to 5,000, but it took month after month after month for them to get there.
In November, Oxfam was begging for the commitment of the 5,000 troops promised. They were desperately needed, but a lack of political will existed among the UN's permanent members, including Britain. The permanent five ruled out sending their own troops; I do not necessarily quarrel with that. However, when the African nations offered their forces, none of the permanent five was willing to provide them with the logistical support and equipment that they needed to get there and to be established there. By then, however, there were already 20,000 militia in the camps, who were basically running them.
I should like the Government to explain their attitude to the deployment of our forces in Rwanda. We took the attitude to start with that we should not put in our own forces. Mysteriously, a group of British soldiers, engineers I believe, then went to Rwanda on a three-month contract. Their work was superb. They were put there because commercial interests had not turned up; the firm engaged to do the logistical support was not yet ready. The troops were then withdrawn. In Rwanda, there is a desperate need for buildings at the prison, for schools and for offices. A contingent of engineers could transform large parts of Kigali quite quickly, but we seem unwilling to send such people. I should like the Government to explain their medium and long-term contribution to Rwanda and their position—not what their aid is.
Will the Minister explain Britain's diplomatic contribution? I gather from a press release today from the Minister for Overseas Development that there has been a decision that we shall reinforce our diplomatic presence in Kigali and in Bujumbura. I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. It seems strange that we should have had a short-term contract for a chargé d'affaires in Kigali which runs out at the end of April and that we should then decide to have another extension of the contract. That is short-termism when Rwanda's problems are clearly long term; it sends exactly the wrong kind of message and increases the insecurity there.
I am conscious that I have asked the Minister many questions about the situation in Rwanda. It is a rare privilege to have 20 minutes of the Minister's time in which to ask questions on behalf of millions of people in Britain who are utterly puzzled about Britain's stance on African disasters such as the one in Rwanda. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Gentleman must be thanked for his perspicacity in applying for this debate. It is a timely opportunity for me to explain what we have been, are and will be doing to help to alleviate the pain and suffering of Rwanda. Sometimes it seems as if the horrors of Rwanda have never been off our television screens. It is, in fact, just over a year since the deaths of the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi at Kigali airport which sparked the massacres, the killings and the genocide that followed. It is important always to remember that every person killed is an individual with a name and a family—part of God's creation.
Last weekend saw a tragic reminder of those events, with the deaths in the camps for the internally displaced in south-west Rwanda. There is still some confusion over the exact cause of these events. As The Times stated on Monday:
Britain's reaction to the weekend's massacre … has been a measured one. Baroness Chalker … was correct to emphasise the wider context of events and the fact that Kibeho had been in the grip of Hutu extremists".
We had little experience or involvement in Rwanda before April 1994. It was a Belgian colony prior to independence in 1962. Since last April, the United Kingdom has made an important and valued contribution to international efforts to alleviate the serious humanitarian problems among the refugees in Zaire, Burundi and Tanzania as well as those displaced within Rwanda itself.
We were among the first into Mwanza in Tanzania providing a vital air bridge into Rwanda, among the first into Goma with water facilities and airport handling services to help get vital supplies moving, and among the first in Rwanda itself as soon as Kigali airport reopened to help relief to get to the people of Rwanda. There was nothing slow about the reaction of the United Kingdom. It was always, throughout this process, in the forefront, seeking to help.
Six hundred and fifty British Army peacekeepers spent three valued months last year with the UN peacekeeping forces and were widely and justly praised for their work in Rwanda, their professionalism in rebuilding damaged infrastructure and for ensuring the delivery of vitally needed emergency and medical assistance. Before anyone even considers criticising the UK peacekeeping commitment to the United Nations, it is perhaps worth recalling that, at this very moment, UK peacekeepers are serving with UN forces throughout the world. Indeed, there are more UK peacekeepers committed to the UN than there are from practically any other country.
We have committed more than £90 million in just over 12 months towards alleviating the terrible human costs of the Rwanda crises. In people and in money, we have

made, and continue to make, a full contribution to the international effort, which was fairly acknowledged by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who observed:
Britain has already done much, and more than most".
Humanitarian aid and help to the people of Rwanda must continue. The international community, with Britain continuing to play a full part, will provide help for those refugees in need, wherever they may be.
Following last weekend's tragedy, we have been in constant touch with our non-governmental organisation partners—Save the Children, Feed the Children and others which are doing vital work on the ground. We have made it clear that we shall continue to provide the money so that they may continue their life-saving activities. Baroness Chalker and I will meet British NGOs tomorrow to discuss that further.
Andy Bearpark, the head of the ODA's emergency aid department, will visit Rwanda next week with Edward Clay, our high commissioner in Kampala, who is also accredited as ambassador in Kigali. They will assess the needs at first hand, and they will have clear messages to deliver to the Rwandan Government from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We also plan to reinforce our diplomatic presence in Rwanda and Burundi to ensure that our views are conveyed to best effect.
Since the start of this year, the emphasis has rightly been on helping the new multi-party and broad-based Government in Kigali to create conditions conducive to the safe return of refugees to their homes in Rwanda. That is not an easy task. Their country was devastated; the infrastructure severely damaged; and human and physical resources decimated. In January, the international community, including Britain, expressed its support for Rwandan rehabilitation plans at a pledging conference held in Geneva. Almost $580 million was pledged for an immediate one-year programme.
British assistance was specifically offered as quick disbursing aid to help meet immediate needs. The Rwandan Government, including the Prime Minister and the Vice-President during their visits to London, have expressed their appreciation for our contribution. We met in full what we pledged at that conference.
Unfortunately, the Rwandan Government, under pressure to rebuild, have shown frustration at what they see as the international community's slowness in bringing those guilty of genocide to trial. In their view, the international community continues to feed those responsible for the genocide in the refugee camps just beyond their borders, while doing little to separate the former Rwandan army and militia. We cannot and do not condone their decision to close their border with Zaire, which prevents humanitarian assistance getting to the innocent, the young and the infirm. We condemn the indiscriminate firing into crowds of stampeding and frightened people at Kibeho.
But we understand the frustrations of the Rwandan Government. We share their desire to deal with the perpetrators of genocide and to sort out the innocent from the guilty and the armed militia within their borders. That is why we were in the forefront of support for United Nations Security Council resolutions establishing an international war crimes tribunal for Rwanda and calling for all countries to co-operate in tracking down and bringing to justice those implicated in genocide. We have


provided money and material support to the international tribunal's work, and offered help to rebuild the shattered judicial system in Rwanda.
The Rwandan Government know our commitment and our concern, and they must avoid intemperate action. The reconstruction programme has only just begun. It will take time. Precipitate and impatient military action will lose them international good will. It risks making them, in the eyes of the world, no better than their predecessors.
We welcome the apology made on Monday to all the people of Rwanda by the Prime Minister of Rwanda. We hope that level-headed members within the coalition Government, itself comprising more Hutus than Tutsis even now, will ensure that progress is resumed. We hope that they will control any who may be intent on vengeful actions, which will get them nowhere.
In Rwanda the need is to continue to press ahead with the agreed international strategy for reconciliation, including the provision of security in the refugee camps outside Rwanda, the rehabilitation of the Rwandan infrastructure, support for the Rwandan judiciary and consolidating the work of the war crimes tribunal, for which Britain has pledged £200,000, part of which will be used to second three British police officers early next month. The United Nations General Assembly will elect the tribunal's judges next week.

Mr. Worthington: I hope that, among the interesting things that the Minister is saying, he will comment on what the European Commission is reported to have done today, in recommending the suspension of much non-humanitarian aid. Does he oppose or support that move? It seems to me to send exactly the wrong message.

Mr. Baldry: I have every intention of dealing with that point. I hope that, by the time I finish speaking, I shall have responded reasonably comprehensively to all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, including that one, which is of course important.
We work to ensure that the arms embargo is effective and that no weapons get through to the extremists in the camps. We expect the Government of Rwanda to address the concerns and fears of those innocent refugees in the camps outside Rwanda—fears that will have been widened by the events last weekend. The Government of Rwanda must continue to work to create conditions conducive to the secure return of refugees, and must resolve urgently the problems over land and property tenure.
The Government there also have to address the problems of the expanding prison population. It is imperative that the international community continue to help them to strengthen the legal process. The Rwandans also need to free women, children, elderly people and those against whom their case may be slight. The consequence of failure to bring about effective national reconciliation will be further civil unrest and loss of life within Rwanda.
We continue to work with and within the international community to find lasting solutions to the problems in Rwanda. But the international community cannot dictate, cannot impose solutions. We can help. We can provide resources and expertise. We can train and advise. We can monitor. There is too great a readiness on the part of some

commentators simply to blame "the west" or "the international community". Rwanda is first and foremost the responsibility of the people of Rwanda.
The regional Governments of the countries that border Rwanda—Zaire, Tanzania, Uganda and Burundi—which are already bearing the impact of the huge number of refugees seeking sanctuary within their borders, also have an important part to play. We shall encourage those regional leaders to play a constructive role. We believe that the Organisation of African Unity and democratic African leaders can have a positive influence on the outcome of what are fundamentally African problems. They have a clear interest in helping to bring about greater regional stability and security.
Against that background, and with the experience of conflict in Rwanda and elsewhere in Africa in mind, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary launched his initiative on conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Africa at last year's United Nations General Assembly. It is designed to help Africans to help themselves, by setting up a system of support structures, running from early warning and preventive action through to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions on the ground, should preventive diplomacy fail.
The proposals contain three elements: the development of an early warning system to give notice of impending crises; an institutional framework for preventive diplomacy; and the enhancement of African peacekeeping capabilities through, for example, the establishment of UN peacekeeping skills centres and UN logistics bases in Africa.
We are already putting some of those ideas into action, through, for example, providing specialised training for African troops about to deploy on UN peacekeeping missions. We will be doing more this year to develop the practical capabilities of African peacekeepers through training and exchange.
Our aim is to encourage Africans themselves to take the lead, with the international community providing support. Africans have already shown a determination to develop capacity in conflict resolution and peacekeeping with the creation of the OAU's conflict resolution mechanism. We must support and enhance these measures to ensure that in future Africans are better equipped to respond appropriately to problems on their continent.
Whenever a tragedy such as this occurs, there is a tendency to blame the UN. Such a rush to judgment is rarely justified. The UN is only the sum of its parts—the member states—and its failings are, more often than not, their failings. But one must also take into account the burden that the UN has had to carry in the past five years, with an exponential demand in not only the number but the complexity of the problems that it now has to deal with.
The very intractability of many of these problems, most of them within states rather than between them, has underlined the need for more emphasis on preventing them from reaching boiling point. The UN has recognised this need. In his 1992 report "An Agenda For Peace", the Secretary-General identified the need for the UN to develop its capacity to spot and head off crises before they developed. Since then, the UN's preventive diplomacy capacities have been built up.
We have all been deeply saddened by the news of the tragic events at Kibeho in recent days. They represent a setback to the process of reconstruction and national reconciliation to which we are all committed. They come in the wake of increasing concerns about the deterioration of the situation inside Rwanda and in the region more generally.
The position of the European Union is clear. Yesterday, the presidency, on behalf of the European Union, issued a clear statement. It said:
The European Union utterly condemns the violence which led to several thousand civilian deaths in the Kibeho camp during Rwandan army operations to close down the camp on 22 April. The Union urges the Rwandan authorities to launch an inquiry without delay in order to identify those responsible for the massacre and to take all the necessary sanctions speedily.
Events of this gravity can only make it more difficult for refugees and displaced persons to return, this being an essential prerequisite for national reconciliation and a lasting solution to the Rwandan problem.
The European Union would point out that its development aid for Rwanda is conditional on respect for human rights and progress towards national reconciliation.
It emphasizes that international aid to the local population must be allowed to proceed unhindered. It therefore calls on the Rwandan authorities to make it easier for the international and non-governmental organizations to carry out their task of relieving suffering.
So we are all agreed on the need for humanitarian aid. The Commission's proposal today, which is of course subject to consultation with member states, including

Britain, appears to cover longer-term development assistance. Obviously, we will study that, but our position on the need for rehabilitation is clear. It is vital that it proceeds to ensure the stability of Rwanda.
We must not allow the latest events to derail the process to promote peace and reconciliation. We have fulfilled all our pledges to help Rwanda towards rehabilitation and reconstruction, and we shall be working with our partners in the international donor community to ensure that others do so, too. We need to continue to work with the Rwandan Government to remind them of their own responsibilities to work towards the achievement of lasting peace and ensure that they send the right signals to the innocent Hutu refugees that they may return home safely.
As I say, to that end, we shall be reinforcing our diplomatic presence in Kigali. We shall also continue to support the NGOs, many of them British, and UN agencies which are providing life-saving humanitarian assistance throughout the region, particularly for those internally displaced people currently on the move within Rwanda. We will continue to provide funds to support their programme.
In short, we will do all that we can to support the international effort to reduce suffering in Rwanda and to help bring that troubled country to a longer and more peaceful future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.